1 1 

# 

c£ 

.•* 

to 

i? 

IE 

3 

1 

^ 

.in^ 

-J^ 

•5* 

•-a 

Q. 

.;         i 

^X* 

;            1 

*S:> 

Jzi 

"^ 

^ 

$ 

"^ 

(D 

o 

C 

"C^ 

o 

bfl 

rs* 

•25 

&H 

<: 

:| 

m 

o 

13 

g- 

1^ 

£ 

.«^ 

<c.* 

M 

<T3 

*»>» 

^ 

Ph 

CO 

■&■ 

^ 

^ 

p^ 

>> 

SI 

% 

c 

s 

^ 

0) 

1 

^ 

CL 

^0 

EXAMINATION 


"  SPRINKLING  THE  ONLY  MODE  OF  BAPTISM 

MADE  KNOWN  IN  THE   SCRIPTURES,  &c. ; 
BY  ABSALOM   PETERS,  D.  D." 


REV.  J.  TORREY^'SMITH,  A.  M. 


I  said,  days  should  speak,  and  multitude  of  years  should  teach 
wisdom.  Great  men  are  not  always  wise :  therefore  I  said,  Hearken 
to  me :  I  also  will  shew  mine  opinion.— Job  xxxii :  7,  9,  10. 


BOSTON: 

JOHN  PUTNAM,  81  CORNHILL, 

1849. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1849, 

BY  JOHN  PUTNAM, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


>.* 


CONTENTS. 


Introductory,  ....  5 

Unfortunate  representations  and   statements — 
"  Industrious  ignorance  " — "Grand  error  of 
the  Baptists  " — "  Close  Communion  " — "  A 
concession  " — Greek     Church — Modes     of 
sprinkling — Translations  of  baptizo — Robin- 
son on  Taylor,      ....  7 
Meaning  of  baptizo — "  Heathen  Greek,"                 25 
"The   true    question" — Pneuma — Angelos — 

Arotron,   .....  37 

Jewish  and  sacred  use  of  baptizo,    .  .  43 

Is  baptism  purification  1        .  .  .  46 

New  Testament  meaning  of  baptizo — Incidental 
use  of  the  word — Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
— Symbolical  import  of  baptism.  Rom.  6  :  3, 
4.  Col.  2 :  12.  1  Cor.  15  :  29.  1  Pet.  3:  21. 
— Other  figurative  allusions  to  baptism — Bap- 
tism in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  .  57 
"  All  questions  on  the  mode  of  baptism  reduced 
to  one,"   .....  88 


IV 


CONTENTS 


Construction  of  baptize — Greek  preposition  en, 
John's  baptism,        .... 
Baptism  of  Christ — Greek  preposition  apo, 
Baptism  of  the>3000 — Several  similar  examples, 
Baptism  of  the  Eunuch — Greek  prepositions  eis 
and  eli — "  Desert" — Isaac's  "  springs  in  the 
desert,"    .... 
Paul  buried  "  in  a  water-pot  of  stone," 
Baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends. 
Baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household, 
Baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  household. 
Baptism  in  the  early  church, 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism,     . 
Alleged  impracticability  of  immersion. 
Remarks   on  Part  II — Covenants — Jewish  and 
Christian  Church — Alleged  testimony  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  .... 
"  Origin  of  the  Baptists  " — Historical  sketch. 
Conclusion — Hint  to  Pedo-baptists, 


91 

99 

108 

111 


115 

126 
126 

127 
127 
129 
13S 
146 


150 
164 

179 


"</^- 


DEDICATION 


To  th^  Faculty  and  Students  of  Williams  College, 
my  revered  Alma  Mater ; — to  the  esteemed  Pastor  of 
the  First  Congregational  Parish  in  Williamstown,  to 
whose  sanctuary  parental  faithfulness  directed  my 
early  steps  ; — and  to  the  People  of  Williamstown,  the 
place  of  my  birth,  the  home  of  my  childhood  and 
youth,  the  following  pages  are  dedicated,  with  every 
feeling  of  respect  and  interest. 

By  their  friend  and  servant. 

In  the  ministry  of  the  gospel, 

J.  T.  Smith. 
Sandisfield,  Mass.,   Oct.  1848. 


EXAMINATION. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

The  circumstance  that  Dr.  Peters'  work  on 
Baptism  was  written  and  published,  not  only  in 
the  county  of  my  residence,  but  also  in  the 
place  of  my  birth  and  education,  has  very  nat- 
urally awakened  in  my  mind  an  interest  suffi- 
cient to  prompt  me  to  a  careful  reading  of  it. 
This  interest  is  not  at  all  diminished  by  a  per- 
sonal respect  which  I  have  ever  cherished  for 
its  author.  In  childhood  and  early  youth  I 
knew  him  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  not 
unfrequently  heard  him  preach  in  the  pulpit 
which  he  now  fills,  so  much  to  the  gratification 
and  profit  of  his  people,  when  he  was  settled  in 
a  neighboring  town.  The  opportunities  I  have 
had  of  occasionally  hearing  him  in  my  riper 
]* 


6  EXAMINATION    OF 

years,  and  the  reading  of  the  very  able  period- 
ical of  which  he  was  for  a  considerable  time 
the  senior  editor,  have  only  strengthened  those 
early  favorable  impressions.  I  could,  there- 
fore, have  willingly  been  spared  the  necessity 
I  feel  of  animadverting  upon  this  work.  My 
personal  regard  for  its  author  would  prompt 
me  to  silence;  a  greater  regard  which  I  owe 
to  our  common  Lord  and  to  the  cause  of  truth, 
equally  dear  I  trust  to  us  both,  impels  me  to 
write. 

In  making  these  animadversions,  I  must 
speak  freely.  No  merely  personal  considera- 
tions ought  to  prevent  my  doing  it.  Still  I 
trust  I  shall  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  Dr. 
Peters  had  grey  hairs  upon  his  head  when  I 
entered  manhood,  nor  forget  what  is  due  to  his 
mature  experience  from  my  comparative  inex- 
perience. And  I  here,  once  for  all,  disclaim 
any  feelings  towards  him  but  those  of  sincere 
respect,  both  as  a  man,  a  Christian,  and  a  min- 
ister of  the  gospel. 

The  book,  I  am  bound  to  believe,  contains 
his  well  considered  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
which  it  treats,  which  he  cherishes  for  reasons 
unquestionably  satisfactory  to  himself.  Yet  I 
feel  obliged  to   say — and  I  say  it  in  all  candor 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  7 

— it  abounds  with  assumptions  and  unproved 
assertions.  Some  of  these  appear  to  me  so 
destitute  even  of  ijlausihility ,  that  the  reader 
must  not  be  surprised  if  I  speak  of  them  in  a 
tone  of  decisiveness,  bordering  upon  abrupt- 
ness. As  my  object  in  writing  is  the  defence 
of  what  I  believe  to  be  truth  against  important 
error,  I  cannot  do  otherwise  than  write  with 
plainness  and  decision. 

I  regret  to  find  some  expressions  which  be- 
tray an  apparently  uncandid  and  unkind  feel- 
ing towards  those  against  whom  the  doctor  is 
writing — exceptions  perhaps  to  the  general 
tenor  of  the  book.  Some  of  these,  in  connec- 
tion with  several  miscellaneous  topics,  will  now 
be  noticed. 

UNFORTUNATE     REPRESENTATIONS      AND     STATE- 
MENTS. 

The  Doctor,  in  the  appendix,  quotes  with  an 
expression  of  approbation,  a  passage  from  the 
editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  beginning  with 
the  following  sentence: — "Before  we  can  dis- 
cuss a  theological  subject,  we  must  clear  away 
those  perversions  in  which  industrious  igno- 
rance and  criminal  presumption  involve  it."  I 
give  the  italics  as  I  find  them.     Now  the  least 


8  EXAMINATION    OF 

I  can  say  about  this  sentence  is,  that  it  was  in 
bad  taste,  both  for  Mr.  C.  Taylor  to  write  it 
and  Dr.  Peters  to  quote  it.  Perhaps  if  hr  had 
not  quoted  it,  we  should  not  have  noticed  the 
following  on  p.  18.  "Learning  andignorance, 
simple  piety  and  sectarian  zeal,  have  all  been 
deeply  and  perseveringly  engaged  in  its  inves- 
tigation." 

It  is  an  old  and  common  proverb,  "  It  is  hard 
twitting  upon  facts."  That  Baptists  are  "  ig-- 
norant "  enough,  I  am  not  going  to  deny.  But 
I  say  it  is  not  very  fraternal  for  our  more  highly 
favored  brethren  to  twit  us  of  it.  Is  it  not  a 
little  in  the  spirit  of  the  elder  brother  in  the  par- 
able? It  is  still  worse  when  they  allow  that  we 
are  ''  industrious.^'  The  wise  man  says, 
•'  there  is  more  hope  of  a  fool,  than  there  is  of 
him  who  is  wise  in  his  own  conceit.''^  There 
surely  is  some  hope  of  the  Baptists,  if  they  feel 
their  "ignorance"  enough  to  be  "industri- 
ous." And  we  surely  ought  to  expect  that  our 
brethren  who  are  favored  with  "learning," 
would  rather  encourage  our  "  industrious  "  at- 
tempts to  be  relieved  from  the  charge  of  "  ig- 
norance." But  if  they  meet  us  with  the  taunt 
of  ''industrious  igiiorance,"  they  must  not  be 
surprised  if  we  use  that  industry  in  a  very  tho- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  9 

rough  canvassing  of  their  condescending  at- 
tempts to  enlighten  us. 

Dr.  P.  says,  (p.  128,)  "The  grand  error  of 
our  Baptist  brethren,  after  all,  is  this:  not  that 
they  prefer  one  mode  to  another;  nor  that  they 
have  adopted  the  most  impracticable  and  one- 
rous of  all  modes,  which  on  that  account  they 
call  the  'cross  of  Christ,^  when,  in  fact,  it  is 
only  a  cross  of  their  own  making;  nor  that  they 
practise  a  mode  for  which  there  is  no  direct 
authority  in  the  scriptures — but  it  is  that  they 
make  the  mode  the  essential  thing  in  bap- 
tism." Now  I  pronounce  this,  at  once,  a  most 
disreputable  begging  of  the  whole  question, 
and  a  gross  calumny  upon  us.  The  grand 
charge  is  preceded  by  three  others.  First,  we 
"prefer  one  mode  to  another."  Again  and 
again  have  we  disclaimed  all  controversy  about 
modes.  We  have  a  greater  work  to  do.  Bap- 
tism ITSELF  is  at  stake;  and  shall  we  stop  to 
differ  about  modes?  Show  us  that  sprinkling 
IS  a  MODE  of  baptism,  and  we  differ  no  longer. 
Again,  we  "have  adopted  the  most  impracti- 
cable and  onerous  of  all  modes,  which  on  that 
account,"  &c.  Is  this  candid?  Have  we  se- 
lected the  most  onerous  among  several  equally 
allowable  modes,  and  insisted  upon  it?     Do  we 


10  EXAMINATION    OF 

not  insist  on  immersion,  not  because  it  is  a 
MODE  of  baptism,  but  because  it  is  baptism  it- 
self, and  THE  THING  required?  Admit  that 
we  are  in  error  here ;  still  so  long  as  it  is  our 
candid  belief,  religiously  held,  we  are  not  open 
to  the  astounding  charge  here  attempted  to  be 
fastened  on  us.  Again,  we  "  practise  a  mode 
for  which  there  is  no  direct  authority  in  the 
scriptures."  The  very  point  in  dispute.  "But 
it  is  that  they  make  the  mode  the  essential 
THING  IN  BAPTISM."  Can  Dr.  P.  have  read  a 
single  book  on  baptism  by  a  Baptist  writer,  and 
make  this  statement.'*  Again  I  say,  we  have 
no  dispute  about  the  mode  ;  all  we  ask  is  the 
THING.  Our  position  is,  that  immersion  is  not 
a  mode,  but  the  thing  itself.  Whether  we 
are  right  or  wrong  in  this  position,  so  long  as 
this  is  our  position,  to  say  that  we  make  the 
mode  the  essential  thing  in  baptism,  is  an  un- 
founded calumny. 

This  alleged  pertinacity  of  ours  about  the 
mere  mode  of  baptism,  is  illustrated  on  p.  120, 
by  the  ordinance  of  the  supper.  It  is  said, 
that  when  this  ordinance  was  institued,  the 
apostles  "  met  in  the  mg-/i^ — on  Thursday — in 
an  upper  chamber,  of  a  private  dwelling;  they 
used  unleavened  bread,  and  the  pure  juice  of 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  11 

the  grape,  and  received  it  half  sitting,  3.nd  half 
lying. ^^  Does  not  the  reader  see,  that  there  is 
no  comparison  between  these  two  cases?  All 
that  is  commanded  in  this  ordinance,  is  that 
bread  and  wine  be  eaten,  and  drank,  with 
prayer,  and  in  a  devout  spirit,  in  grateful  re- 
membrance of  Christ's  death.  This  is  all  that 
is  expressed  or  implied  in  the  words  which  con- 
tain the  account  of  the  institution  of  this  ordi- 
nance. But  now,  suppose  some  Christians 
should  claim  that  the  use  of  bread  and  wine  in 
this  ordinance,  is  only  a  mode  of  observing  it, 
and  that  the  use  of  apples  and  milk  is  another 
mode,  and  suppose  these  Christians  should  say 
that  Dr.  Peters,  in  contending  for  bread  and 
wine,  is  contending  for  a  mere  mode;  would  he 
admit  that  charge .''  He  would  say,  these  ele- 
ments are  commanded;  so  far  as  relates  to  the 
external  act  in  this  ordinance,  the  use  of  these 
is  not  a  mode,  but  the  thing.  This  is  a  parallel 
case.  This  is  what  we  say  about  immersion. 
If  sprinkling  were  a  mode  of  baptism — if  the 
laws  of  language  would  allow  us  to  admit  that 
haptizo  may  be  translated  sprinkle,  we  should 
have  no  controversy  on  the  outward  form  of 
baptism. 

Dr.  P.  uses  the  expression  on  p.  22,   ''  close 


12  EXAMINATION    OF 

communion  Baptists. ^^  Similar  expressions  are 
found  elsewhere.  Is  this  candid?  Did  he  sup- 
pose that  this  expression  would  give  his  reader 
a  particle  of  light  on  any  subject  whatever,  or 
that  it  would  have  any  effect  whatever  except 
to  excite  groundless  prejudice  against  us?  As 
painful  as  such  a  conclusion  is,  have  we  not 
good  reason  to  conclude  that  he  used  it  pre- 
cisely for  this  purpose? 

The  term  close  communion,  if  it  have  any 
meaning  at  all,  (and  it  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have,)  means  restricted  communion.  And  what 
evangelical  denomination  is  there,  that  does 
not  restrict  its  communion?  We  invite  to  the 
communion  none  whom  we  deem  unbaptized; 
does  Dr.  Peters  invite  to  his  communion  those 
whom  he  deems  unbaptized?  and  does  not  every 
evangelical  denomination  restrict  its  commun- 
ion as  far  as  that?  Dr.  Griffin  says,  "  Should 
a  pious  Quaker  so  far  depart  from  his  princi- 
ples as  to  wish  to  commune  with  me  at  the 
Lord's  table  while  he  yet  refused  to  be  bap- 
tized, I  could  not  receive  him;  because  there 
is  such  a  relationship  established  between 
those  two  ordinances  that  I  have  no  right  to 
separate  them.''  He  adds,  "The  only  question 
then  is,  whether  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  valid 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  13 

baptism."  He  then  does  just  what  we  should 
expect  Dr.  Griffin  would  do;  not  to  rail  at  us — 
for  he  always  cherished  a  warm  regard  for 
Baptists — but  to  give  reasons  for  believing 
sprinkling  to  be  valid  baptism.  Now  will  Dr. 
Peters  object  to  this  principle  as  stated  by  Dr. 
Griffin?  But  this  is  precisely  our  principle. 
In  our  hands  indeed,  it  cuts  off  more  christians 
from  our  communion  than  it  would  in  Dr.  Grif- 
fin's or  Dr.  Peters'  hands;  but  the  principle  is 
the  same.  We  exclude  Pedo-baptists  from  our 
communion,  for  the  same  reason  that  they  ex- 
clude Quakers  or  any  body  else  whom  they 
consider  unbaptized;  viz.  because  we  think 
them  unbaptized,  and  because  we  consider  that 
"there  is  such  a  relationship  established  be- 
tween these  two  ordinances,  that  we  have  no 
RIGHT  to  separate  them." 

I  contend  that  so  far  as  closeness  goes,  our 
brethren  are  more  ^^  close  "  than  we  are.  We 
exclude  from  our  communion  all  whom  we  deem 
unbaptized.  They  exclude  all  whom  they  deem 
unbaptized,  and  cry  "  close  communion!  "  upon 
us.  But  is  that  all .''  No.  They  exclude  from 
their  communion  a  large  class  of  persons  whom 
they  claim  to  have  solemnly  baptized  into  the 
church,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
2 


14  EXAMINATION    OF 

Holy  Ghost!  Dr.  P.  (p.  158,)  in  common 
with  Dwight,  Miller,  Stearns,  and  most  other 
Pedo-baptist  writers,  claims  that  baptized  chil- 
dren are  members  of  the  church.  Here  then 
is  a  large  and  interesting  class  of  baptized 
church  members,  whom  their  pastors  and  breth- 
ren will  not  admit  to  the  communion!  See 
Matt.  vii.  3,  4.* 

On  p.  124,  after  stating  the  fact  that  Baptist 
missionaries  in  their  versions  of  the  scriptures 
into  heathen  languages,  translate  the  words 
baptizo  and  baptisma,  instead  of  transferring 
them,  the  Doctor  adds,  "They  eschew  the 
very  words  baptize  and  baptism,  in  all  their 
translations."  A  new  idea  truly !  Translating 
a  word  is  eschewing  it!  When  missionaries  of 
all  denominations  translate  the  word  metanoeo, 
(repent)  on  the  supposition  that  they  are  giv- 
ing that  word  to  the  heathen,  it  seems  they 
thereby  eschew  the  word.  The  christian 
world  have  been  congratulating  themselves 
on  their  success  in  giving  the  Bible  to  the 
heathen,  because   it  is  translated  into  so  many 


*  For  a  full  elucidation  of  the  subject  of  communion,  so 
far  as  it  is  a  controverted  subject,  see  "  Remington  on  Com- 
munion," a  tract  published  by  L.  Colby  &  Co.,  New  Fork. 
It  is  the  best  and  most  conclusive  treatise  that  I  know  of  on 
that  subject. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  15 

languages.  But  now  it  turns  out,  that  in 
doing  this,  they  havo  eschewed  the  whole  Bible! 

But  now  as  to  this  matter  of  "  eschewing," 
let  us  see  how  the  case  stands  between  Bap- 
tists and  Pedo-baptists.  Baptists  translate 
these  words,  therefore  they  eschew  them. 
Pedo-baptists  do  not  translate  these  words, 
therefore  they  do  not  eschew  them.  But  they 
translate  all  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  except  these 
words.  Now  since  translating  a  word  is  es- 
chewing it,  it  follows  indisputably  that  our 
brethren  eschew  the  whole  bible,  except  the 
words  baptize  and  baptism! 

He  adds,  "I  name  this  fact  as  a  concession 
on  the  part  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  perfectly 
satisfactory,  that  they  do  not  regard  our  present 
translation  of  the  Bible  as  justifying,  or  even 
favoring  immersion"!  Is  not  this  profound 
reasoning?  Such  Baptist  ministers  as  defend 
their  views  simply  from  the  English  Bible  are 
"ignorant.''^  "Our  best  philologists  have 
abundantly  proved,"  &c.  But  when  we  take 
him  up  on  the  testimony  of  those  philologists 
and  follow  him  into  the  original — what  then? 
"A  concession! ''  "Perfectly  satisfactory!" 
"  They  admit  that  the  English  Bible  is  entirely 
against  them!  " 


16  EXAMINATION    OF 

If  I  chose  to  descend  to  it,  I  could  produce 
many  such  concessions  from  Dr.  P's  book. 
For  example  : — On  p.  13,  the  Doctor  tells  us 
that  he  uses  the  word  sprinkling  in  his  book  in 
preference  to  aspersion,  affusion,  or  pouring, 
(and  of  course  in  preference  to  immersion,)  be- 
cause it  is  a  better  translation  (not  of  baptizo, 
let  the  reader  mark,  but)  of  rantizo  ;  and 
that  he  uses  the  word  sprinkling  according  to 
the  original  signification  (not  of  baptizo,  but) 
of  rantizo,  which  is,  to  pour  all  over;  to  wet;  to 
besprinkle.  Of  course,  it  must  follow,  that  he 
always  reads  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  in 
the  Bible,  rantize  and  rantism;  and  if  he  could 
have  a  Bible  which  fully  met  his  views,  the 
words  rantize  and  rantism  would  always  be 
used,  where  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  now 
occur.  "  I  name  this  fact  as  a  concession  on 
the  part  of"  Dr.  Peters,  "  perfectly  satisfac- 
tory, that  he  does  not  regard  our  present  Bi- 
ble," either  in  the  original  or  the  translation, 
"  as  justifying  or  e\ en  favoring^  ^  sprinkling.  I 
name  it  also  as  a  concession  on  his  part,  that 
instead  of  the  name  Baptist  being  an  appropri- 
ate one  for  him,  (see  p.  124)  his  proper  appel- 
lation would  be  Rantist.  Now  I  appeal  to  the 
reader,  if  I  have  not   fixed  a  concession  upon 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  17 

him,  as  clearly  sustained,  to  say  the  least,  as 
the  one  he  attempts  to  fasten  upon  us. 

On  p.  21,  Dr.  P.  tells  us  that  the  Greek 
church  cannot  be  claimed  as  the  exclusive  sup- 
porters, of  either  immersion  or  sprinkling,  be- 
cause they,  after  immersing  the  subject  three 
times,  sprinkle  him  with  water. 

As  this  matter  of  sprinkling  in  the  Greek 
church  was  entirely  new  to  me,  I  addressed  a 
letter  to  Rev.  H.  T.  Love,  of  North  Adams, 
who,  having  been  for  several  years  a  mission- 
ary in  Greece,  is  well  acquainted  with  the 
usages  of  that  church.  I  received  a  letter 
from  him  in  reply,  of  which  the  following  is 
the  essential  part. 

JVorth  Adams,  Sept.  13,  1848. 
Rev.  and  dear  Brother  : — 

You  say  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peters,  of  Wil- 
liamstown,  in  his  book  entitled,  "  Sprinkling 
the  only  Mode  of  Baptism  made  known  in  the 
Scriptures,"  makes  the  statement  that  the 
Greek  church  sprinkle  the  candidate,  after 
they  have  immc7^sed  him,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
practice  of  that  church  cannot  be  clairded  as  the 
exclusive  supporter  of  either  mode.  You  inquire 
for  the  correctness  of  this  statement. 
2* 


18  EXAMINATION    OF 

In  reply  I  would  say,  that  during  my  resi- 
dence of  something  more  than  six  years  in 
Greece  Proper,  and  in  the  Ionian  Islands,  I 
was  familiar  with  all  the  modes  of  worship  of 
the  Greek  church,  and  I  never  saw  any  sprink- 
ling, either  ecclesiastical  or  secular,  which  in 
the  Greek  language  was  called  baptism.  I 
have  witnessed  the  ceremony  of  baptizing  their 
children,  and  never  saw  any  sprinkling  what- 
ever on  the  occasion.  I  have  frequently  ex- 
amined the  service  of  the  Greek  church  in  re- 
ference to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  con- 
tained in  their  ecclesiastical  books.  There  is 
no  mention  whatever  of  sprinkling  there.  It 
is  uniformly  immersion.  Dr.  Peters  would 
certainly  have  done  well,  if  he  had  given  us 
his  authority  for  this  most  remarkable  state- 
ment. 

I  am,  my  dear  brother, 

Yours  affectionately, 

Horace  T.  Love. 

Dr.  P.  adds,  "  The  Roman  Catholic  church, 
whose  example  is  quite  as  worthy  of  imitation, 
practice  only  sprinkling  so  far  as  water  is 
used."  True,  but  the  Roman  Catholic  church 
admits  that  the  primitive  baptism  was  immer- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  19 

sion,  but  that  she,  by  the  authority  with  which 
Christ  has  invested  her,  has  changed  it.  If 
any  body  thinks  that  an  example  worthy  of 
imitation,  let  them  follow  it.  For  ourselves, 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  imitating  either  of 
those  churches.  All  we  ask  of  the  Greek 
church  is  its  testimony  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Greek  word  bapiizo ;  and  we  have  the 
testimony  of  both  that  and  the  Catholic  in  our 
favor. 

The  Doctor  on  p.  21  speaks  somewhat  com- 
placently of  the  unanimity  of  opinion  in  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  of  sprinkling,  among  those 
who  practice  it,  in  contrast  with  an  alleged 
diversity  of  opinion  in  reference  to  the  mode  of 
immersion  among  those  who  practice  that. 
Now  I  presume  that  our  brethren  have  too 
much  sense  to  make  a  diversity  of  practice  in 
sprinkling  a  matter  of  dispute,  still  it  will  not 
be  denied,  that  there  is  as  great  a  diversity 
among  them  as  can  be  shown  among  the  ad- 
vocates of  immersion.  Sometimes  the  "  sprink- 
ling "  is  done  by  pouring  water  from  a  bowl 
upon  the  head  of  the  candidate;  sometimes  it 
is  done  by  the  administrator  dipping  his  hand 
thrice  in  a  basin,  and  giving  the  subject  a 
trine   sprinkling;    sometimes   the   candidate  is 


20  EXAMINATION    OF 

sprinkled  but  once ;  and  sometimes  the  "sptinJc- 
ling  "  is  done  without  any  sprinkling  at  all, — 
the  minister  dipping  the  ends  of  his  fingers 
and  laying  them  on  the  forehead  or  head  ;  or 
again  dipping  the  fore  finger,  and  making  the 
sign  of  the  cross.  Still  there  is  no  dispute 
among  them,  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  among 
Baptists  about  the  mode  of  immersion.  Tunk- 
ers  are  not  Baptists;  and  we  have  no  dispute 
with  them  about  triple  forward  immersion. 
Campbellites  are  not  Baptists;  we  neither  con- 
cede them  the  name,  nor  do  they  claim  it.  If 
Campbellites  and  Tunkers  choose  to  dispute, 
it  concerns  us  as  little  as  the  disputes  between 
Old  and  New  School  Presbyterians.  That 
Campbellites  agree  with  us  in  the  outward 
form  of  baptism,  is  to  us  a  mere  trifle  in  com- 
parison with  the  damning  error  which  they 
hold  in  common  with  the  Episcopal  church, 
and  such  other  Pedobaptists  as  will  send  for  a 
minister  in  the  night,  to  sprinkle  a  child  lest  it 
should  die  without  baptism, — the  saving  efficacy 
of  baptism. 

Dr.  P.  in  giving  the  meaning  of  rantizo,  on 
p.  13,  1  infer  quotes  from  Donnegan's  Lexi- 
con, because  he  gives  the  meanings  as  they 
are  laid   down  there,   verbatim,  et  literatim,  et 


PETERS    ON        BAPTISM.  21 

punctuatim.  Now  I  certainly  shall  not  dispute 
those  definitions.  I  would  simply  ask,  if  Don- 
negan  is  good  authority  on  the  meaning  of 
raniizo,  why  is  he  not,  also,  on  the  meaning  of 
bajitizo  ?  If  he  is  to  be  believed,  when  he 
says  rantizo  means  to  pour  all  over;  to  wet;  to 
besprinkle;  why  should  he  not  be  when  he 
says  baptizo  means  to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a 
liquid;  to  submerge, — to  soak  thoroughly, — to 
saturate  ? 

It  is  moreover  worthy  of  notice,  that  the 
Doctor  labors  to  show  that  baptizo  and  ran- 
tizo are  synonymous  words.  But  did  any 
mortal  ever  see  a  lexicon  which  defined  those 
two  words  in  the  same  terms?  or  which  de- 
fined baptizo  in  the  terms  in  which  Donnegan 
defines  rantizol  Never.  But  if  they  are  sy- 
nonymous, they  ought  to  be  defined  in  the 
same  terms.  Every  lexicographer  who  re- 
garded them  as  synonymous,  would  so  define 
them.  But  that  lexicographer  is  yet  to  be 
found. 

Dr.  P.  has  very  appropriately  dedicated  his 
book  to  the  Faculty  and  Students  of  Williams 
College;  and  it  might  be  interesting  to  some 
who  have  graduated  at  that  college,  to  know 
how  far  the  gentleman  who  now  fills  the  Greek 


22  EXAMINATION    OF 

chair,  concurs  in  the  philological  principles  of 
this  book.  In  Professor  Kellogg's  day  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  in  so  much  of  the  Greek 
classics  as  was  then  read,  meant  nothing 
but  immerse;  and  to  those  who  enjoyed  the 
rare  privilege  of  his  instructions,  his  opinion 
would  outweigh  (begging  pardon)  that  of  Dr. 
Peters,  and  his  friend  of  Calmet's  Dictionary 
both.  I  can  speak  with  confidence  on  this 
point,  for  I  believe  I  read  every  word  that  be- 
longed to  the  Greek  course  while  I  was  there ; 
and  the  fact  is  as  I  have  stated. 

Dr.  P.'s  principles  of  translating  Greek  par- 
ticles would  have  sounded  strange  in  those 
halls  in  Prof.  Kellogg's  day.  That  thorough 
linguist  was  particular  to  a  proverb,  in  rela- 
tion to  translating  Greek  particles.  They  al- 
ways had  a  clear  and  precise  meaning  with 
him.  So  well  understood  was  this  among  in- 
dolent and  superficial  students,  that  one  of 
this  class,  and  something  of  a  wag  withal, 
used  to  say  that  "  Prof  Kellogg  was  prepar- 
ing for  the  press  a  bock  on  the  Greek  particle 
ge,  as  large  as  Donnegan's  Lexicon." 

On  p.  43  Dr.  P.  says,  ''The  transfer  of  this 
word  baptism  into  the  English  Bible  was  only 
calling  the  thing  by  its  right  name.     It  had  no 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  W^ 

other  name  in  any  language. ^^  He  could 
not  have  made  a  very  particular  inquiry  as  to 
the  facts  in  this  case  before  he  penned  this 
statement,  and  for  the  reader's  benefit  I  will 
state  them.  Rev.  F.  W.  Gotch,  of  Trinity 
College,  Dublin,  published  a  few  years  since 
a  pamphlet,  showing  the  rendering  of  the 
word  baptizo  in  the  ancient  and  modern  ver- 
sions of  the  New  Testament.  From  this  it 
appears  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  had 
some  other  name  than  that,  in  every  language 
in  which  the  New  Testament  had  been  trans- 
lated previously  to  the  appearance  of  our  ver- 
sion, except  seven.  In  seventeen  versions, 
made  earlier  than  ours,  the  word  is  render- 
ed immerse;  including  the  Syriac,  Arabic, 
Ethiopic,  Coptic,  Armenian,  Gothic,  German, 
Danish,  Swedish,  Dutch,  Belgic  and  Welch. 
In  the  Sahidic,  Basmuric  and  Latin  Vulgate, 
baptizo  is  transferred;  and  also  in  the  earlier 
English,  French,  Spanish  and  Italian;  com- 
prising in  all  eight  versions.  Six  of  these, 
however,  may  be  reduced  to  two,  because 
they  were  made  in  languages  which  may  be 
regarded  as  dialects  of  the  Latin,  and  were 
translations  from  that  version.  Besides  these, 
in  two  versions  it  was  rendered  wash,  and  in 
three,  cross.     So  that  in  all  the  languages  in 


24  EXAMINATION    OF 

which  the  Bible  had  been  translated,  this  or- 
dinance had  some  other  name  than  baptism, 
except  the  Latin,  French,  Spanish,  Italian 
and  English,  and  two  eastern  languages;  and 
in  the  most  of  them  that  name  was  immersion. 
In  the  Appendix,  p.  189,  Mr.  C.  Taylor 
gives  us  a  rare  definition  of  immerse,  "  A 
man  is  immersed  who  stands  on  his  toes,  or  up 
to  his  knees  in  wafer."  This  must  be  new  to 
"plain  men."  As  Mr.  T.  calls  the  term 
"bad  Latin,"  we  will  inquire  what  it  is  in 
Latin.  Leverett's  Lexicon  defines  immergo, 
to  plunge  into,  imme7'se,  dip  in,  sink.  Webster 
defines  the  English  word  immerse,  to  put  under 
ivater  or  other  fluid,  to  plunge,  to  dip.  Ac- 
cording to  these  authorities,  a  man  cannot  be 
immersed  in  water,  without  being  put  under 
water.  If  his  toes  are  covered  with  water,  his 
toes  are  immersed;  if  he  stands  up  to  his 
knees  in  water,  his  feet  and  legs  are  immersed; 
but  the  man  is  not  immersed.  A  man  who 
makes  so  self-evident  a  blunder  the  starting 
point  of  his  argument,  cannot,  in  his  own  eyes, 
have  much  difficulty  in  proving  any  thing.* 

*  After  observing  the  high  commendation  which  Dr.  Peters 
has  given  to  this  Mr.  C.  Taylor,  it  might  be  interesting  to 
the  reader  to  understand  the  estimate  which  Frot\  Robinson, 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  25 


MEANING    OF    BAPTIZO. 


Dr.  Peters  is  not  quite  accurate  in  giving 
the  position  of  the  Baptists.  He  says  (p.  20) 
that  we  "strenuously  maintain  that  the  pri- 
mary classical  meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  im- 
merse or  dip,"  and  that  "  on  this  ground,  prin- 
cipally," we  ''contend  that  immersion  and 
nothing  else  is  baptism.^'  We  maintain  that 
the  primary   and  proper   meaning  of  baptizo, 

the  editor  of  the  American  edition  of  Calmet's  Dictionary 
places  upon  him.  He  says  in  his  preface  : — "  The  character 
of  Mr.  Taylor  as  an  editor,  and  the  value  of  his  additions  to 
Calmet's  work,  may  be  given  in  few  words.  Acquainted 
with  oriental  philology  only  through  the  meagre  system  of 
Masclef  and  Parkhurst3  as  an  expounder  of  etymologies, 
outstripping  even  the  extravagance  of  the  latter  5  and  as  a 
theorist  in  the  ancient  history  of  nations,  overstepping  the 
limits  which  even  Bryant  had  felt  himself  constrained  to  ob- 
serve 5 — his  remarks  on  these,  and  many  collateral  topics, 
may  be  characterized  as  being  in  general  fanciful,  very  often 
rash,  and  sometimes  even  involving  apparent  absurdity. 
They  must  ever  be  received  by  the  student  with  great  cau- 
tion." With  the  specimen  before  us  which  Dr.  Peters  has 
given  of  Mr.  C.  Taylor,  no  one  can  doubt  the  perfect  accu- 
rarcy  of  Prof.  Robinson's  estimate  of  him.  It  is  indeed  with 
much  truth  that  Dr.  Peters  has  said  that  his  book  does  not 
depend  on  great  names;  Mr.  C.  Taylor  is  his  greatest.  He 
must  search  a  good  while  to  find  great  names  to  sanction 
the  proposition  that  sprinkling  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism 
made  known  in  the  scriptures. 
3 


26  EXAMINATION    OF 

both  in  classical,  Jewish  and  sacred  Greek, — 
in  any  and  every  kind  of  Greek  that  has  any 
title  to  be  quoted  as  authority,  is  to  immerse; 
and  it  is  on  this  ground  we  contend  that  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else  is  baptism. 

Baptists  believe  that  the  "  command  to  bap- 
tize has  a  dejinite  meaning, — a  meaning  which 
was  understood  by  those  to  whom  it  was  pri- 
marily addressed,  and  which  ought  to  be  under- 
stood by  us;"  (p.  15,) — that  *'the  single  word 
baptizo  defines  the  ordinance."  (p.  17.)  Our 
first  inquiry  therefore  is,  What  does  this  word 
baptize  mean?  And  since  it  "  is  not  with  us 
vernacular,"  (p.  17,)  since  this  word  is  Greek, 
not  translated  but  only  transferred  into  the 
English  Bible,  (pp.  42,  123,)  we  conclude  the 
surest  way  to  ascertain  its  meaning,  is  to  re- 
sort to  those  who  used  this  language,  and  to 
whom  this  word  was  vernacular.  And  when 
•Dr.  Carson  on  the  side  of  the  Baptists,  and 
Prof.  Stuart  on  the  side  of  the  Pedobaptists, 
have  each  for  himself,  and  independent  of  the 
other,  made  a  thorough  exploration  of  the 
whole  range  of  classical  literature,  and  per- 
fectly agreed  as  to  the  results  of  that  exami- 
nation, that  this  word  never  means  in  classical 
Greek    any  thing   else    but  immerse   or   over- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  27 

whelm,  we  conclude  that  one  important  step 
has  been  taken  towards  settling  the  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize,  in  the  commission  of  our 
Lord.  But  now  Dr.  Peters  tells  us,  that  is  all 
labor  lost!  Dr.  Carson  and  Prof.  Stuart  sup- 
posed that  they  were  doing  the  Christian 
world  a  service,  in  establishing  the  meaning 
of  baptizo  in  the  classics.  Simple  men,  they 
might  just  as  well  have  been  rummaging  the 
Hindoo  shasters,  so  far  as  doing  any  thing  to 
settle  this  controversy  is  concerned!  The  entire 
agreement  of  two  such  men  on  this  point,  is  of 
no  importance  whatever!  All  their  labor  was 
on  the  "  mistaken  assumption tha.t  it  is  in  point," 
for  "  in  fact  it  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with 
the  subject!"  It  is  "heathen  Greek!"  (p  22.) 
It  is  a  pity  that  Dr.  Carson  and  Prof.  Stuart 
could  not  have  been  told  of  this  in  season,  and 
so  have  been  saved  those  hours  of  painful 
poring  over  old  Greek  books. 

Now  it  must  be  allowed  that  this  is  a  very 
summai^,  if  not  conclusive  way  of  disposing 
of  an  argument.  Classical  Greek  is  "heathen 
Greek!'' — "has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with 
the  subject!"  I  venture  to  say  that  if  classi- 
cal Greek  made  any  show  of  proving  that  bap- 
tizo means  sprinkle,   we  should   hear   nothing 


28  EXAMINATION    OF 

about  the  irrelevancy  of  heathen  Greek.  On 
such  an  artifice  comment  is  unnecessary. 

This  again  would  have  been  a  queer  sound 
within  the  walls  of  Williams  College  eight  or 
ten  years  ago.  Heathen  Greek!  It  is  true  we 
were  well  aware  that  Homer,  Herodotus,  Xen- 
ophon,  Sophocles,  Thucidides,  Demosthenes 
were  heathens,  but  it  never  once  occurred  to 
us  that  their  elegant  pages  were  heathen  Greek. 
Some  of  us  were  looking  forward  to  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  and  supposed,  and  our  instruct- 
ors encouraged  us  to  believe,  that  we  were 
doing  something  to  prepare  ourselves  for  the 
sacred  office.  Poor  dupes!  We  were  merely 
studying  heathen  Greek! 

Had  the  Doctor  been  content  with  affirming 
that  the  classical  meaning  of  baptizo  is  wholly 
irrelevant,  I  might  have  taken  him  as  conced- 
ing that  its  classical  meaning  is  solely  im- 
merse, and  so  have  been  spared  the  necessity 
of  proving  it.  But  he  devotes  half  a  page  to 
the  assertion  that  it  means  in  the  classics,  to 
tinge,  to  dye,  to  smear,  &c.,  as  well  as  to  im- 
merse. Now  I  shall  be  obliged  to  spend  as 
much  time  in  proving  that  his  assertion  is  un- 
founded, as  if  he  had  attempted  to  prove  its 
truth;   for  I   think  its  classical  meaning  does 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  29 

have   some  bearing   upon  its  meaning  in  the 
New  Testament. 

He  says,  "The  Editor  of  Calmet's  Diction- 
ary quotes  some  80  examples,  in  every  one  of 
which,  the  word  in  question  implies  less  than 
submersion,  and  in  most  of  them,  no  more  than 
sprinkling,  moistening,  pouring,  or  staining. ^^ 
Without  seeing  any  more  of  the  book  referred 
to  than  the  specimen  given  us  in  the  appendix, 
I  venture  the  assertion  that  the  word  baptize 
does  not  occur  in  a  single  example  which  has 
any  show  of  proving  what  is  here  affirmed. 
Mr.  C.  Taylor,  in  the  passage  in  the  appendix, 
undertakes  to  show  by  divers  examples  the 
meaning  of  baptize  in  the  New  Testament. 
And  how  does  he  do  it .''  By  citing  several  in- 
stances of  the  use  of  the  verb  bapto,  and  the 
noun  baptismos,  neither  of  which  are  employed 
in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  And  that  is  the  way  that 
Pedo-baptists  always  manage  this  controversy. 
They  prove  that  bapto  means  to  tinge,  to  dye, 
or  to  smear,  and  then  triumphantly  exclaim, 
that  baptize  does  not  always  mean  immerse!  , 
In  all  their  books  which  contain  passages  cited 
from  Greek  author's  designed  to  shew  that  bap- 
Tizo  means   something  short  of  immePvSE,   the 


30  EXAMINATION    OF 

word  is  not  baptizo  but  bapto.  This  I  know 
from  an  examination  of  many  of  those  books. 
But  BAPTO  is  not  the  word  used  to  designate  this 
rite;  it  is  ahcays  baptizo. 

Now  I  will  prove  from  Prof  Stuart,  what  the 
classical  meaning  of  both  these  words  is,  es- 
tablished by  a  great  number  of  passages  cited 
by  him.  And  I  suppose  I  need  not  inform  the 
reader  that  Prof  Stuart  is  a  Massachusetts 
Congregationalist,  for  a  long  time  the  virtual 
head  of  Andover  Seminary,  the  father  of  bibli- 
cal learning  in  this  country,  and  of  a  world- 
wide reputation  for  varied  and  extensive  learn- 
ing. I  shall  give  the  results  only  of  his  inves- 
tigation, and  in  his  own  words. 

"1.  Bapto  and  baptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge, 
or  immerse  into  any  thing  liquid.  All  lexicog- 
raphers and  critics  of  any  note  are  agreed  in 
this. 

"2.  The  verb  bapto  means  to  plunge  or 
thrust  into  any  thing  solid,  but  permeable,  so 
as  to  cover  or  enclose  the  thing  plunged.  This 
is  exclusively  employed  in  such  cases. 

"3.  The  yevh  bapto,  only,  is  employed  to 
convey  the  meaning  to  dip  out,  to  dip  up,  by 
plunging  in  a  vessel  and  drawing  it  up. 

*'4,     The  verb  bapto,  qnlv,  (and  its  deriva- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  31 

tives  in  point  of  form,)  signifies  to  tinge,  dye, 
or  COLOR.  In  this  respect  it  seems  plainhj  to 
differ  from  baptizo.  I  find  no  instance  in  ivhich 
the  latter  is  employed  in  this  waij. 

"5.  The  word  baptizo  means  to  overwhelm, 
literally  and  figuratively,  in  a  variety  of  ways. 

"6.  Bapto  is  employed  in  the  sense  to 
SMEAR,  to  BATHE,  by  the  application  of  a  liquid 
to  the  surface. 

"7.  A  shade  of  meaning  kindred  to  the 
above,  viz.  to  wash,  is  sometimes  attached  to 
bapto  in  the  classics." 

He  adds,  "  The  Greek  writers  made  a  dis- 
tinct and  DIVERSE  use  of  the  ivords  bapto  and 

baptizo,     NEVER    CONFOUNDING     THEM."       The 

reason  why  Dr.  Peters  says  that  baptizo  means 
to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  smear,  Slc.  in  the  classics, 
is  that  he  confounds  it  with  bapto.  The 
reader  will  see  that  Prof  Stuart  gives  but  two 
definitions  to  baptizo.  1.  To  dip,  plunge,  or 
immerse  into  any  liguid.  2.  To  overwhelm, 
literally  and  figuratively. 

While  Prof  Stuart  was  writing  this  essay, 
Dr.  Carson  in  England,  was  publishing  his 
work  on  baptism,  in  which  he  arrives  at  pre- 
cisely the  same  results  as  to  the  meaning  of 
those  words  that  Prof  Stuart  does.     He  shows, 


32  EXAMINATION    OP 

in  entire  agreement  with  Prof.  Stuart,  that  the 
primary  meaning  of  bapto  is  to  dip  or  immerse, 
but  because  in  dyeing,  the  substance  to  be  col- 
ored •  is  ordinarily  dipped  into  the  coloring 
liquid,  this  word  has  the  secondary  significa- 
tion of  tinge,  dye,  smear,  Sec;  and  he  also 
shows,  in  perfect  agreement  with  Prof.  Stuart, 
that  baptizo  in  the  classics  never  has  that  sec- 
ondary signification,  but  always  means  immerse 
or  overivhelm. 

Now  I  put  it  to  "  plain  men,"  whether  it  is 
candid  and  honest  in  Pedo-baptist  ministers  to 
represent  that  baptizo  means  to  tinge,  dye, 
smear,  moisten,  wet,  because  bapto  may  admit 
those  significations,  after  two  such  men  on  both 
sides  have  so  conclusively  settled  the  clear  dis- 
tinction between  those  words,  and  proved  that 
baptizo  in  the  classics  never  has  those  significa- 
tionsl  Dr.  Peters  may  perhaps  say,  he  is  not 
bound  by  Prof  Stuart's  admissions.  But  he  is 
bound  by  what  Prof  Stuart  has  proved,  unless 
he  proves  the  reverse.  If  not,  how  is  this  con- 
troversy ever  to  be  settled.''  If  important 
points,  admitted  and  proved  by  two  such  wri- 
ters on  both  sides,  are  to  be  brought  up  again 
in  the  form  of  naked  assertion,  and  reiterated 
again  and   again,  how  shall  we  ever  come  to 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  33 

agree  upon  any  thing?  I  must  say  to  my 
Pedo-baptist  brethren,  it  requires  a  great 
stretch  of  charity  to  believe  that  they  have  any 
desire  to  settle  this  controversy,  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  conduct  it. 

I  here  say,  once  for  all,  I  shall  spend  no 
time  disputing  with  any  man  about  bapto.  It 
is  not  the  word  in  question,  and  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  subject. 

Dr.  P.  refers  to  "our  best  philologists," 
which  I  suppose  means  Pedo-baptist  philolo- 
gists. I  have  quoted  from  one,  Prof  Stuart, 
and  to  show  the  utter  groundlessness  of  his  as- 
sertion, I  will  add  the  testimony  of  a  few  others 
— all  Pedo-baptists. 

My  second  citation  shall  be  from  Dr.  Robin- 
son, acknowledged  to  be  among  biblical  scho- 
lars and  critics  in  this  country  like  Saul  among 
his  people — head  and  shoulders  above  them. 
He  is  referred  to  by  Dr.  P.,  and  quoted  as 
high  authority,  on  p.  29.  In  his  Greek  and 
English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
work  absolutely  without  a  rival  in  the  lan- 
guage, the  following  are  the  only  definitions 
given  of  baptizo:  "To  immerse,  to  sink.  In 
the  New  Testament,  1.  To  wash,  to  cleanse 
by  washing.     2.  To  administer  the  rite  of  bap- 


34  EXAMINATION    OP 

tism.  Metaphorically  and  in  allusion  to  the 
sacred  rite  of  baptism,  to  baptize  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  in  fire,  to  overwhelm,  richly  furnish 
with  all  spiritual  gifts,  or  overwhelm  in  un- 
quenchable fire." 

Prof.  Patton,  of  Princeton  College,  edited 
an  American  edition  of  Donnegan's  Greek  and 
English  Lexicon,  in  which  baptizo  is  thus  de- 
fined: "To  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid, 
to  submerge,  to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate, 
hence  to  drench  with  wine.  Metaphorically  to 
confound  totally ; — to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw. " 

So  far  American  philologists.  Passing  be- 
yond the  ocean,  I  will  refer  to  the  following. 
Greenfield's  New  Testament  Lexicon:  "To 
immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink;  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution, 
to  cleanse,  to  immerse,  to  administer  the  rite 
of  baptism." 

Scapula,  author  of  a  very  celebrated  Euro- 
pean Lexicon,  defines  baptizo  thus:  "  Mergo, 
seu  immergo;  ut  quae  tingendi  aut  abluendi 
gratia  aqua  immergimus.  Item  mergo,  sub- 
mergo,  obruo  aqua.  Item  abluo,  lavo;" — 
which  I  translate  thus:  "To  plunge  or  im- 
merse ;  as  things  which  for  the  sake  of  dyeing 
or   washing,  we  immerse  in  water.     Also  to 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  35 

plunge,     submerge,     overwhelm    with   water. 
Also  to  wash  off,  to  bathe." 

Schleusner's,  another  celebrated  New  Tes- 
tament Lexicon,  a  standard  work  both  in  Eu- 
rope and  America,  gives  the  following  dejfini- 
tions  ofbaptizo:  "1.  Proprie:  immergo  ac  in- 
tingo,  in  aquam  mergo.  Respondit  Hebraico 
tabal.  Jam  quia  baud  raro  aliquid  immergi 
ac  intingi  in  aquam  solet  ut  lavetur,  hinc,  2, 
abluo,  lavo,  aqua  purgo,  notat.  3.  Hinc 
transfertur  ad  baptismi  ritum  solemnem.  4. 
Imbuo,  large  et  copiose  do  atque  suppedito, 
largiter  profundo.  5.  Calamitatum  fluctibus 
obrui,  mergi  miseriis,  mala  perferre,  etiam 
sponte  se  periculis  vitse  ofterre,  mortem  adeo 
ipsam  sibi  inferre  pati."  Translation:  "1. 
Properly  to  immerse  and  dip  in,  to  plunge  into 
water.  It  answers  to  the  Hebrew  tabal* 
Now  BECAUSE  not  unfrequently  a  thing  is  wont 
to  be  immersed  and  dipped  into  water  in  order 
that  it  may  be  washed,  hence,  2,  it  denotes  to 
perform  ablution,  to  wash,  to  cleanse  with  wa- 
ter. 3.  Hence  it  is  transferred  to  the  rite  of 
baptism.  4.  To  imbue,  to  give  and  supply 
largely  and   copiously,  to   pour  out   largely — 

*  See  Dr.  P.,  p.  48, 


36  EXAMINATION    OF 

(spoken  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.)  5. 
To  be  overwhelmed  with  the  waves  of  calami- 
ties," &c. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  Principal  of  Maris- 
chal  College,  of  Aberdeen  University,  author 
of  the  profound  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,  Dis- 
sertations, Translation  and  Notes  on  the  Gos- 
pels, the  successful  antagonist  of  Hume  in  his 
famous  argument  on  miracles,  to  whom  Dr.  P. 
refers  with  approbation,  on  p.  29,  says,  "  The 
word  baptizo,  both  in  sacred  and  classical  au- 
thors, signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse, 
and  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  mean- 
ing." 

Beza,  who,  says  Prof.  Stuart,  is  one  of  the 
most  acute  judges  of  Greek  idioms,  says, 
"Baptizo  does  not  signify  to  wash,  except  by 
consequence.  To  be  baptized  in  water  signi- 
fies no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water; 
which  is  the  external  ceremony  of  baptism." 
The  German  critics  who  give  the  same  testi- 
mony in  relation  to  this  word  are  too  numerous 
to  mention;  all  Pedo-baptists,  let  the  reader 
remark.  Bretschneider,  declared  by  Pres. 
Sears  to  be  confessedly  the  most  critical  lexi- 
cographer of  the  New  Testament,  says,  "  An 
entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word." 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  37 

I  will  only  add  to  this  list,  Dr.  Anthon,  the 
great  classical  scholar  of  New  York,  who  says, 
* '  JVo  scholar  could,  without  injuring  his  reputa- 
tion, give  the  signification  of  sprinkle  to  baptizo.** 

Now  whether  the  classical  meaning  of  bap^ 
tizo  has  any  thing  to  do  with  this  question  op 
not,  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  say,  I  have  proved 
that  it  is  solely  immerse,  or  overwhelm. 


THE     TRUE     QUESTION. 

After  affirming  that  the  classical  meaning  of 
baptizo  has  no  bearing  upon  the  subject,  Dr. 
P.  proceeds  to  state,  (p.  23,)  what  the  true 
question  is.  And  here,  where  we  should  ex- 
pect great  precision,  there  is  either  an  extra- 
ordinary looseness  of  language,  or  a  still  more 
extraordinary  intimation.  *'  The  true  question 
is:  what  was,  and  is,  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  to 
designate  the  religious  ordinance  of  baptism.'"' 
"  What  was,  and  is.''  Does  the  Doctor  mean 
to  insinuate  that  the  meaning  of  baptizo  is  any 
different  from  what  it  was"?  Has  it  changed 
since  the  commission  to  baptize  was  given  ?  If 
not,  then  its  meaning  is  what  it  tvas  when  that 
4 


38  EXAMINATION    OF 

cornrnission   was  given.     Omitting   the  phrase 
"  and  is,"  I  accept  the  statement. 

The  Doctor  proceeds  by  labored,  though 
most  unfortunate  illustrations,  to  show  what  no 
mortal  could  be  simple  enough  to  deny;  viz. 
that  if  any  Greek  word  used  by  Christ  had 
changed  in  its  signification  between  the  time, 
say  of  Homer  and  the  time  of  Christ,  Christ 
used  it,  not  in  its  Homeric  sense,  but  in  the 
current  sense  of  his  day.  Dr.  Campbell  and 
Prof  Robinson  are  brought  in  (p.  29,)  to  prove 
this  self-evident  proposition.  But  now  the  im- 
portant question  of  fact  arises,  does  the  word 
baptizo  fall  within  the  range  of  this  self-evident 
proposition?  In  classical  Greek  this  word  ex- 
pressed a  definite  physical  act;  did  it  express 
any  different  physical  act  in  the  time  of  Christ? 
or  did  it  express  that  same  physical  act  with 
any  less  distinctness?  And  it  so  happens  that 
these  two  witnesses  have  not  only  testified  as 
to  the  principle  in  question,  but  also  as  to  the 
question  of  fact  arising  under  the  principle. 
Dr.  Campbell  testifies  that  "  ihe  sacred  use 
and  the  classical,  are  often  very  different." 
Agreed,  say  I;  but,  Dr.  Campbell,  are  the  sa- 
cred and  the  classical  use  of  baptizo  different"? 
No,    promptly    responds     Dr.    P.'s    witness — 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  39 

*'  The  ivord  baptizo,  both  in  sacred  and  clas- 
sical AUTHORS,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to 
immerse,  and  is  always  construed  suitably  to 
this  meaning.  Had  baptizo  been  employed  in 
the  sense  of  raino,  I  sprinkle,  which,  so  far  as 

I    know,  it    NEVER   IS    IN    ANY    USE,     SACRED  OR 

classical,"  &c.  Will  Dr.  P.  and  his  breth- 
ren accept  Dr.  Campbell's  testimony  on  the 
fact  as  well  as  on  the  principle"^  Prof  Robin- 
son testifies  to  the  same  principle.  Agreed  as 
before.  But  now  how  is  the  fact  in  relation  to 
the  word  baptizo"^  and  Prof  Robinson's  lexi- 
con tells  us  all  about  this,  as  we  have  seen 
already. 

The  Doctor,  in  unfolding  this  principle  of 
interpretation,  introduces  an  illustration  that 
we  must  call  windy,  if  not  worse.  He  tells 
us,  (p.  25,)  "  The  wovA  pneuma,  spirit,  in  the 
most  ancient  Greek,  meant  wind  or  breath,  and 
nothing  further."  Is  he  willing  to  stake  his 
reputation,  as  a  learned  man,  on  the  declara- 
tion that  the  word  prieuma,  in  classical  Greek, 
means  nothing  but  wind?  Stephanus,  in  his 
thesaurus,  says  that  it  means  spirit  as  well  as 
ivind,  and  quotes  examples  from  Aristotle, 
Sophocles  and  Plutarch.  It  was  used  then  by 
"  heathen  "  Greek  writers,  hundreds  of  years 


40  EXAMINATION    OF 

before  the  New  Testament  was  written,  in 
precisely  the  same  manner  that  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament — to  signify  ivind  and 
SPIRIT.  This  Greek  word  is  precisely  equiva- 
lent to  the  Hebrew  ruach,  and  the  Latin  spirit- 
us,  and  all  of  them  primarily  mean  breath,  but 
were  employed  by  those  who  used  those  lan- 
guages to  express  the  metaphysical  idea  of 
spirit.  I  suppose  it  is  well  understood  by  all 
men  who  make  any  pretensions  to  learning, 
that  all  metaphysical  ideas  are  expressed  by 
words,  that,  in  their  primary  import,  express 
physical  ideas. 

The  illustration  on  the  word  angelos,  is  as 
little  to  the  point.  Its  classical  meaning  is 
messenger,  and  this  is  precisely  its  meaning 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  applied  to  Angels, 
who  are  God's  messengers,  sent  forth  to  minis- 
ter to  the  heirs  of  salvation.  It  is  applied  to 
John  the  Baptist — to  the  messengers  sent  by 
John  to  Christ — to  the  spies  concealed  by  the 
harlot  Rahab — and  to  Paul's  thorn  in  the 
flesh  ;  and  the  instances  in  which  it  occurs  in 
the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament  are  too  numer- 
ous to  mention.  It  is  the  word  usually  em- 
ployed where  the  word  messenger  occurs  in 
our  version. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM,  41 

But  the  crowning  illustration  is  on  the  word 
arotron,  the  Greek  for  ploiv.  If  the  "  plain  " 
reader  will  look  into  Webster,  he  will  find  the 
following  definition  of  ploiv:  "  An  instrument 
for  turning  up,  breaking  and  preparing  the 
ground  for  receiving  the  seed.  It  is  drawn  by 
oxen  or  horses,  and  saves  the  labor  of  dig- 
ging." Now  I  suppose  that  if  the  first  Greek 
who  invented  and  used  an  arotron^  had  been 
asked  to  describe  what  he  called  by  that  name, 
he  would  have  done  it  just  as  Dr.  P.  defines  it; 
but  if  he  had  been  asked  to  define  it,  he  would 
have  done  it  much  as  Dr.  Webster  defines  the 
English  word  plow.  That  would  be  the  pre- 
cise and  proper  definition  of  arotron,  when  the 
"  old  Roman  plow  "  was  first  invented.  But 
just  look  at  the  Doctor's  definition  of  arotron: 
"A  straight  stick  of  timber,  sharpened  at  one 
end,  with  a  clevis  at  a  suitable  distance  from 
the  sharpened  point,  by  which  it  was  drawn, 
while  it  was  steered  by  a  man  at  the  other  end 
of  the  stick."  That  is  as  philosophical  as  it 
would  be  to  define  man, — a  corporeal  being, 
six  feel  or  more  high,  with  an  aquiline  nose, 
and  a  bald  head,  because  that  would  partially 
describe  the  outer  man  of  an  eminent  divine, 
well  known  to  both  Dr.  P.  and  me.  But  that 
4# 


42  EXAMINATION    OF 

would  be  as  unfortunate  as  the  Doctor's  defini- 
tion of  arotron,  since  it  would  leave  both  him 
and  me  out  of  the  category  of  men !  The  sim- 
ple truth  is,  the  word  arotron  will  apply  to  the 
old  Roman  plow  and  to  the  modern  Yankee 
plow,  without  the  least  modification  of  its  mean- 
ing. 

So  conclusive  is  Dr.  P.  in  his  attempt  to 
prove  what  nobody  would  think  of  denying. 
If  he,  or  anybody  else,  will  prove  that  the  word 
BAPTizo  expressed  to  those  who  used  the  Greek 
language,  whether  in  the  synagogue  or  the  hea- 
then temple,  any  different  physical  act,  or  any 
less  definite  physical  act,  when  the  commission  to 
baptize  loas  given  by  our  Lord,  than  it  did  ivhen 
used  by  Homer,  Herodotus,  or  Sophocles,  we 
yield  the  point  at  once.  The  physical  act  im- 
plied in  the  ordinance  of  Christian  Baptism 
must  be  that  which  the  word  expressed  when  the 
command  was  given.  The  Doctor's  proof  that 
there  is  such  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo,  is  about  as  follows  : 

The  classical  and  sacred  use  of  some  Greek 
words  are  different.  Baptizo  is  a  Greek  word. 
Therefore  the  classical  and  sacred  use  of  bap- 
tizo are  different.     That  is  like  the  following  : 

Some   men    died  in   Sept.    1848.     Zachary 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  43 

Taylor  is   a  man.     Therefore  Zachary  Taylor 
died  in  Sept.  1848.     Q.  E.  D.! 

JEWISH    AND    SACRED    USE    OF    BAPTIZO. 

Dr.  P.  quotes  from  Prof.  Robinson,  (on  p. 
22,)  a  principle  recognized  by  all  Biblical 
scholars,  that  Jewish  writers  employed  some 
Greek  words,  and  some  forms  of  construction, 
in  some  respects  different  from  their  classical 
use.  But  where  do  we  find  evidence  of  this 
principle  ?  We  find  it  by  an  examination  of 
the  Jewish-Greek  writers,  and  a  comparison 
of  them  with  classical  Greek.  These  writers 
are  the  Translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  in 
the  Septuagint,  (referred  to  by  Dr.  P.,  p.  25,) 
the  authors  of  the  Apocrypha  and  Josephus. 
Now  nobody  pretends  that  all  Greek  words  are 
modified  in  this  Jewish-Greek  dialect.  All 
admit  that  some  words  are,  and  Dr.  P.  claims 
that  baptizo  is.  If  baptizo,  in  the  Jewish- 
Greek  dialect,  has  any  different  meaning  from 
what  it  has  in  classical  Greek,  should  we  not 
be  likely  to  find  it  in  the  Septuagint,  Apocry- 
pha and  Josephus?  But  Dr.  P.  has  not  cited 
a  single  passage  from  either  of  these,  proving 
such  ^  fact,    Does  the  reader  ask  why  ?    I  can 


44  EXAMINATION    OF 

give  no  better  reason  than  that  he  could  not. 
It  is  used  both  literally  and  figuratively.  When 
used  literally,  the  physical  act  expressed  is  im- 
mersion;  when  used  figuratively,  it  means  to 
overwhelm.  Says  Dr.  Carson,  "the  language 
of  no  writer  can  have  more  authority  on  this 
subject  than  Josephus.  A  Jew,  who  wrote  in 
the  Greek  language  in  the  apostolic  age,  must 
be  the  best  judge  of  the  meaning  of  Greek 
words  employed  by  Jews  in  his  own  time.  Now 
this  author  uses  the  word  frequently,  and  al- 
ways in  the  sense  of  immersion.' '  He  shows 
this  by  numerous  examples. 

The  reader  will  see  that  this  question  is 
now  reduced  to  a  narrow  point.  When  our 
Saviour  gave  the  command  to  baptize,  the  word 
BAPTizo,  wherever  and  by  whomsoever  spoken  or 
ivritten,  ^t'hether  by  Greek  or  Jeiv,  in  Athens,  in 
Alexandria,  or  in  Jerusalem,  meant  neither  less 
nor  more  than  immerse.  Would  he,  in  insti- 
tuting a  positive  ordinance,  use  a  word  in  a 
sense  different  from  any  use  then  known,  with- 
out the  least  intimation  of  it?  Is  that  credi- 
ble? He  commands  us  to  be  baptized;  that 
is  the  law;  but  Dr.  P.  tells  us  he  does  not 
mean  baptize  in  that  law,  he  means  rantize. 
(Note  p.  13.)     He  labors  to  show  that  purifi- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  45 

cation  by  sprinkling  is  the  idea  intended  to  be 
conveyed.  If  our  Saviour  meant  this,  why  did 
he  not  say  it"?  Had  he  said  katharizo,  instead 
of  baptizo,  we  should  have  known  that  he 
meant  pMri/*^;  and  then  that  long  discussion  of 
Dr.  P.'s  on  Jewish  purifications,  introduced 
on  a  "  mistaken  assumption  that  it  is  in  point, 
when,  in  fact,  it  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with 
it,"  would  have  been  relevant.  Had  he  said 
rantizo,  then  we  should  nave  known  that 
"  sprinkling  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism  made 
known  in  the  Scriptures."  Had  he  said  brecho, 
(to  wet)  instead  of  baptizo,  we  should  have 
known  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  sprinkle  or  im- 
merse, at  our  pleasure.  But  he  used  neither 
of  these  words.  He  used  baptizo,  a  word 
that,  by  the  universal  consent  of  the  learned, 
expressed  to  all  who  used  the  Greek  language 
at  the  time  the  command  was  given,  the  phy- 
sical   ACT    OF    IMMERSION. 

Now  if  the  words  employed  by  our  Saviour, 
in  giving  the  law  of  baptism,  do  not  inform  us 
what  is  commanded,  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing.  A  law  not  expressed  in  definite  lan- 
guage, is  no  law.  If  the  word  used  in  the 
historical  accounts  of  baptism  do  not  inform 
us  what  physical  act  was  performed  in  baptism, 


46  EXAMINATION    OF 

we  inquire  in  vain.  But  Dr.  P.,  abandoning 
"heathen^'  Greek,  abandoning  the  Septuagint 
and  Apocrypha,  abandoning  Josephus,  has  en- 
trenched himself  in  the  New  Testament. 
There  let  us  follow  him. 

IS    BAPTISM    PURIFICATION  ? 

Dr.  P.  (p.  36,)  lays  the  foundation  of  his 
scriptural  argument  in  an  assumption  for  which 
not  a  particle  of  proof  is  offered.  He  refers 
to  Heb.  9:  10,  where  the  expression  <iia/)/iorois 
baptismois ,  (divers  baptisms — in  our  version, 
washings)  occurs.  He  proceeds  to  remark, 
**the  reader  should  here  possess  himself  of 
definite  impressions  as  to  the  true  nature  of 
these  Jewish  purifications  or  baptisms.^'  Hav- 
ing thus  assumed  that  "  baptisms  "  in  this  verse 
means  purifications,  and  that  therefore  purifi- 
cation is  a  proper  synonyme  of  baptism,  he 
proceeds  to  reason  upon  it  as  if  it  were  a  thing 
settled  and  proved.  Now  the  apostle  declares 
that  the  legal  dispensation  consisted  "  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms  (immersions) 
and  carnal  ordinances."  But  does  he  say 
those  immersions  were  purifications.''  No;  he 
says  nothing  about  it.     We  know,  by  reading 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  47 

the  law,  that  the  effect  of  these  baptisms  was 
ceremonial  purification;  but  the  baptisms  them- 
selves  were  not  purification,  and  it  is  a  gross 
confusion  of  language  to  say  they  were.  But 
that  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Paul  does  not 
say  this  was  their  effect;  he  says  nothing 
about  their  effect.  He  leaves  us  to  find  this 
out  as  we  can  best. 

From  this  assumption  a  therefore  follows,  p. 
38.  "  The  true  meaning,  therefore,  of  the 
'  divers  baptisms '  under  the  law,  and  of 
Christian  baptism — the  main  idea,  the  thing 
commanded — is  purification,  or  consecration. 
This  is  the  thing  signified  by  the  external 
symbol ;  and  the  mode  of  applying  the  sym- 
bol is  comparatively  unimportant.  This  is 
especially  the  case  in  Christian  baptism. 
Hence  no  particular  mode  is  prescribed  in 
our  Saviour's  command  to  his  disciples  to  bap- 
tize; and  the  only  thing  upon  which  the  mind 
can  fasten,  in  this  command,  as  of  divine  ob- 
ligation, is  the  thing  signified  by  the  word  bap- 
tize, which  is  to  purify,  or  to  consecrate,  by 
the  application  of  water  in  some  mode!" 
George  Fox  himself  could  not  have  desired 
nor  produced  any  better  Quakerism  than  that 
passage.     Baptism     consists,    as    the    reader 


48  EXAMINATION    OF 

must  see,  of  two  parts;  the  external  symbol, 
and  the  thing  signified  .  The  thing  signified  is 
purification.  Now  "the  only  thing  upon 
which  the  mind  can  fasten,  in  the  command  to 
baptize,  is  the  thing  signified."  If  the  thing 
signified  is  all  that  this  law  commands,  then 
there  is  no  external  symbol  commanded ;  and 
consequently,  no  warrant  for  outward,  or 
WATER  BAPTISM.  But  perhaps  my  reader  will 
suggest,  that  the  Doctor  says  the  thing  signi- 
fied is  to  purify  by  the  application  of  water  in 
some  mode.  True;  but  how  can  he  say  it, 
after  saying  what  he  has  above.''  If  baptism 
consists  of  an  external  symbol  and  the  thing 
signified,  and  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  com- 
mand on  which  the  mind  can  fasten,  except 
the  thing  signified,  the  command  cannot  reach 
the  external  symbol.  But  what  is  the  "  appli- 
cation of  water  in  some  mode,"  if  it  is  not  an 
external  symbol.''  If  the  external  symbol  is 
not  commanded,  then  there  is  no  command  for 
the  application  of  water  in  some  mode — or  in 
any  mode.     Quakerism,  full  blown. 

He  proceeds:  "  And  not  only  is  no  precise 
mode  of  applying  the  symbol  prescribed  in  the 
command,  no  mode  is  spoken  of  afterwards, 
as  binding,   or  as  commanded."     I  need  not 


PETERS    Oi\    BAPTISM.  49 

say  again,  Baptists  do  not  contend  for  any 
mode  of  baptism.  Dr.  P..  however,  intends  to 
say,  that  the  command  to  baptize  does  not 
prescribe  any  definite  physical  act,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  all  others.  But  does  not  the  com- 
mand to  baptize,  prescribe  "  the  thing  "  which 
the  word  baptize  means?  And  if  the  word 
baptize  did  express  a  definite  physical  act  whe^ 
the  command  was  given,  (which  I  have 
proved,)  does  not  that  command  prescribe  that 
definite  physical  act?  And  has  Dr.  P.  a  right 
to  declare  as  positively  as  he  does  here,  that 
that  word  did  not  express  any  definite  physical 
act  when  that  command  was  given,  on  his 
naked  assumption,  without  a  word  of  proof  ? 

He  says  further  :  *' And  these  names  (bap- 
tism and  purification)  are  synonymous.  They 
mean  the  same  thing.  Both  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  in  the  writings  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  they  are  used  interchangeably,  the  one 
for  the  other." 

As  to  this  reference  to  the  Fathers,  if  he 
will  take  their  instructions  on  baptism,  he  will 
go  beyond  us,  on  immersion.  He  will  find  that 
the  '*  regeneration,"  '*  remission,"  "illumi- 
nation," or  "purification"  (for  the  Fathers 
used  each  of  these  names,  and  several  others, 
5 


50  EXAMINATION    OF 

interchangeably  with  baptism)  will  require  not 
less  than  three   immersions. 

Two  passages  are  cited  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, Luke  11:38 — 41.  Christ  sat  down 
with  a  certain  Pharisee  to  meat.  "  And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had 
not  washed  (ebaptisthe,  baptized  himself)  before 
dinner.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Now 
do  ye  Pharisees  make  clean  {hatharizete,  puri- 
fy) the  outside  of  the  cup  and  platter,"  &c.  It 
is  evident  from  this  verse,  that  the  supersti- 
tious Pharisees  immersed  themselves  when- 
ever they  came  from  any  public  place,  for  the 
sake  of  purifying  themselves  from  any  defile- 
ment they  might  have  contracted.  The  trav- 
eller Bruce  describes  a  similar  custom  as  still 
prevailing  among  a  Jewish  sect  in  Abyssinia. 
But  does  this  passage  prove  that  baptize  is 
synonymous  with purifyl  The  sacred  historian 
described  precisely  the  physical  or  outward  act 
that  the  Pharisee  wondered  Christ  did  not  per- 
form, just  as  we  should  expect  a  faithful  his- 
torian would;  and  Christ  did  just  what  we 
should  expect  the  omniscient  Saviour  would 
do;  directed  his  answer  to  what  was  in  the 
Pharisee's  mind,  viz:  his  superstitious  notions 
on  the   subject   of  ceremonial  defilement  and 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  51 

purity.  The  Pharisee  evidently  observed  this 
custom,  for  the  sake  of  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion, as  an  effect  of  the  baptism  (i.  e.,  immer- 
sion). But  still  bapiizo  is  one  word,  and  kaih- 
arizo  is  another,  and  each  has  its  own  mean- 
ing. But  suppose  Dr.  P.  has  established  all 
that  he  asserts  in  this  paragraph,  what  has  he 
proved?  Why,  that  in  the  mind  of  that  Phari- 
see, these  two  words  were  synonymous.  Are 
we  then  to  take  Pharisaical  superstitions  as 
our  guide  in  Christ's  ordinance  of  baptism? 

The  second  example  cited,  is  from  John 
3:  25,  26.  Let  the  reader  carefully  observe 
the  facts  there  stated.  John  was  baptizing"  in 
Enon,  near  to  Salim.  A  question  arose  be- 
tween some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews 
about  purifying.  The  disciples  of  John  came 
to  their  Master  with  the  information  that  Christ 
was  baptizing.  Now  before  Dr.  P.  can  make 
this  piece  of  history  serviceable  to  his  theory 
of  baptism,  he  must  prove  four  things.  First, 
that  the  subject  of  debate  between  John's  dis- 
ciples and  the  Jews,  was  the  same  with  the 
conversation  between  John's  disciples  and 
their  Master.  The  narrative  says  the  one  was 
on  purification,  the  other  on  baptism ;  the  one 
a  question,  the   other  a  statement  of  a  fact.     If 


52  EXAMINATION    OF 

this  be  proved,  then  it  will  be  necessary  to 
show  that  when  the  Jews  confounded  the  bap- 
tism of  John  and  of  Christ  with  Jewish  purifi- 
cations, they  had  a  correct  conception  of  it. 
If  it  should  turn  out  that  John's  and  Christ's 
baptism  was  a  very  different  observance  from 
Jewish  purifications,  their  erroneous  views 
would  not  help  Dr.  P.  any  more  than  the 
superstitions  of  the  Pharisee  in  Luke  11.  If 
these  two  positions  shall  be  made  out,  then  it 
will  be  necessary  to  prove  that  John's  baptism 
was  Christian  baptism.  If,  as  Dr.  P.  main- 
tains, John's  baptism  is  not  Christian  baptism, 
though  he  were  to  prove  that  John's  baptism 
was  the  Jewish  rite  of  purification,  that  would 
prove  nothing  in  relation  to  Christian  baptism. 
And  lastly,  though  it  should  be  proved  that 
both  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  had  cor- 
rect views  of  baptism,  and  whatever  they 
thought  of  baptism  would  apply  to  Christian 
baptism,  the  most  that  would  follow  would  be 
that  purification  is  an  effect  of  baptism,  not  that 
it  is  baptism.  It  would  be  far  from  proving 
that  baptize  and  purify  are  synonymous  words. 
The  careful  reader  of  Dr.  P.'s  book  will 
see  that  his  whole  argument  to  prove  that 
'*  sprinkling  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism  made 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  53 

known  in  the  scriptures,"  rests  on  this  as- 
sumption that  baptize  means  to  purify;  while 
not  a  scripture  does  he  adduce  to  prove  it, 
but  these  two  to  which  I  have  just  referred.  If 
he  has  failed  to  prove  this  point,  his  fabric 
falls.  Whether  he  has  proved  it,  I  leave  for 
the  candid  reader  tojudge. 

The  most  extraordinary  declaration  on  this 
point  is  on  p.  41.  "  Baptize  is  the  word  which 
is  more  frequently  used  thsin  purify,  in  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament,  to  denote  this  ordi- 
nance." More  frequently  used  !  Dare  any 
man  say  that  purify  is  ever  used,  in  one 
solitary  instance,  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism? 
If  any  man  dare  say  it,  he  has  more  daring 
than  I  wish  to  have,  in  view  of  such  a  declara- 
tion as  that  contained  in  Rev.  22:  18,  19. 

The  next  step  in  Dr.  P.'s  argument  would 
be  an  obvious  one.  Some  of  the  legal  purifi- 
cations were  performed  by  sprinkling.  Bap- 
tize, therefore,  means  to  sprinkle.  After  citing 
again  Heb.  9:  10,  (p.  44,)  "divers  baptisms," 
he  affirms  that  Paul  calls  two  examples  of 
sprinkling  referred  to  by  him,  baptism!  Now  I 
beg  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  word 
baptismos,  in  any  writer  of  Greek  before 
5# 


54  EXAMINATION    OF 

Paul's  time,  whether  heathen  or  Jewish,  never 
means  any  thing  but  immer'sion ;  have  we  any 
right  to  suppose  that  Paul  uses  that  word  here 
in  a  new  and  unheard  of  sense?  Then  read 
the  chapter  for  yourself,  and  see  whether  Paul 
calls  those  sprinklings  baptisms,  or  whether 
that  is  a  naked  assertion  of  Dr.  P.'s.  Do  you 
say  the  sprinklings  are  specifications  under 
the  general  head  of  clivers  baptismsl  I  answer, 
no.  The  general  heads  in  verse  10,  are  three: 
meats  and  drinks,  divers  baptisms,  and  carnal 
ordinances.  Under  these  three  heads  he 
places  the  whole  legal  dispensation.  And  the 
specifications  which  he  adduces,  must  come 
under  the  last  mentioned  of  the  three  heads, 
viz:  carnal  ordinances.  That  is  the  division 
which  he  proceeds  to  illustrate  by  examples. 
We  have  no  right  to  make  baptismois  in  this 
passage,  mean  sprinklings,  except  in  the 
emergency  that  there  were  no  immersions  un- 
der the  law  to  which  the  word  can  be  referred. 
No  matter  how  many  sprinklings  the  law  re- 
quired; if  it  required  divers  immersions,  dia- 
phorois  baptismois  means  the  immersions  for 
all  the  sprinklings. 

But  says  Dr.  Peters,    (p.  49,)  "no   immer- 
sions of  persons  were  enjoined,  and   the  whole 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  55 

Mosaic  ritual  as  to  personal  ablution,  could  be 
fulfilled  to  the  letter  without  a  single  immer- 
sion." Now  I  would  just  observe  to  the 
**  plain  "  reader,  since  we  have  the  law-book 
in  our  hands,  it  might  be  best  to  examine  this 
point  for  ourselves.  The  following  passages 
may  throw  some  light  upon  the  subject:  Ex. 
29:4.  40:12.  Lev  14:7,8.  15.  16:4,24, 
26,28.  17:15,  16.  22:6.  Num.  19:  7,  8, 
19.  Deut.  23:  11.  2  Chron.  4:  6.  No  less 
than  twelve  cases  of  personal  ablution  are 
specified  in  Lev.  15,  in  which  the  persons  are 
required  to  bathe  themselves  in  water;  and 
wherever  the  word  ivash  occurs,  it  is  the  same 
that  is  translated  bathe,  and  according  to 
Maimonides,  whom  Dr.  P.  styles  "the  great  in- 
terpreter of  the  Jewish  law,"  it  requires  a  com- 
plete immersion.  His  language  is,  "  Wherever 
in  the  law,  washing  of  the  flesh,  or  of  clothes, 
is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the 
imme7'sion  of  the  ivhole  body  in  a  bath." 

This  whole  argument  of  Dr.  P.'s  in  relation 
to  purification  rests  on  assumption,  and  on  an 
unwarrantable  confusion  of  language.  Cere- 
monial purification  ivas  the  effect  of  the  im- 
mersions and  the  sprinklings  practised  by  the 
Jews  under  the  law;   but  the  words  immersion, 


56  EXAMINATION    OF 

or  washing,  or  sprinkling  and  purification, 
were  not  therefore  synonymous.  But  when 
he  says  that  Christian  baptism  is  purification, 
what  does  he  mean?  Does  he  mean  that  it  is 
ceremonial  purification?  Are  we  then,  in  the 
gospel  church,  practising  the  old  Jewish  or- 
dinances? He  cannot  mean  that.  Then  he 
must  mean  inward  or  spiritual  purification.  It 
must  be  one  of  these  two.  It  cannot  be  the 
first.  Can  it  be  the  last?  When  he  says 
that  baptize  and  purify  are  synonymous 
words — that  all  that  the  mind  can  fasten  on  in 
the  command  to  baptize  is  purification,  does 
he  mean  to  say  that  outward  baptism  is  spirit- 
ual purification?  Does  he  even  mean  that 
spiritual  purification  is  the  effect  of  outward 
baptism?     Has  Dr.  P.  turned  Campbellite? 

"  But  I  turn  away  from  this  scene  of  human 
error  and  confusion.  The  Bible,  and  NO- 
THING BUT  THE  BIBLE,  is  the  creed  of 
"Protestants."*  On  the  direct  declaration  of 
the  word  of  God,  I  deny  that  baptism  is  purifi- 
cation, or  that  purification  is  even  the  effect  of 
baptism.  In  1  Pet.  3:  21,  we  are  told  in  so 
many  words,  that  "  baptism  is  not  the  putting 
away  of  the  filth   of  the   flesh."     Now  I  sup- 

*p.  iiy. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  57 

pose  every  reader  understands  filth  of  the  flesh 
here,  to  mean  moral  defilement,  i.  e.  sin. 
The  putting  of  that  away  is  spiritual  purifica- 
tion. But  the  apostle  says  baptism  is  not  the 
putting  that  away;  i.  e.  it  is  not  spiritual 
purification. 

Baptism,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  is  a  sign 
of  entire  separation  from  sin,  and  that  in- 
cludes purification.  But  because  baptism  is 
a  sign  of  purification,  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  it  is  purification.  It  would  be  a  rare  ab- 
surdity to  say  that  baptism  is  what  it  is  a  sign 
of.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  regeneration; 
will  Dr.  P.  say  that  it  was  regeneration.? 

NEW    TESTAMENT    MEANING    OF    EAPTIZO. 

We  have  followed  Dr.  P.  through  his  effort 
to  prove  that  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament 
means  to  purify.  1  shall  now  show  that  the 
New  Testament  proves  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo to  be  immerse,  or  overwhelm.  In  doing 
this  we  must,  for  the  present,  leave  out  of 
view  the  historical  accounts  of  baptism,  be- 
cause the  object  of  this  investigation  is  to 
settle  the  meaning  of  that  word  in  the  historical 
accounts.     Our  sources  of  information  will  be 


58  EXAMINATION    OF 

the  following:  The  incidental  mentions  of  the 
words  baptize  and  baptism — the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost — the  symbolical  import  of 
baptism — and  the  figurative  allusions  to  bap- 
tism. The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  I 
have  proved,  mostly  by  the  declarations  of 
Pedo-baptists,  that  the  word  baptize,  both  in 
classical  and  Jewish  Greek,  up  to  the  ivriting 
of  the  JVew  Testament,  meant  immerse  only.  If 
I  prove  what  I  now  affirm,  I  shall  then  have 
established  the  meaning  ofbaptizo  in  the  com- 
mission, to  be  immerse,  and  nothing  else. 

1.  The  incidental  mentions  of  the  words  bap- 
tize and  baptism. 

One  of  these  has  already  been  considered, 
viz:  Heb.  9:  10,  where  I  have  shown  the 
meaning  to  be  immersion. 

Another  is  in  Mark  7:  3,  4.  "For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash 
their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition 
of  the  Elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  baptize  themselves,  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  bap- 
tism of  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels  and 
couches." 

Dr.  P.  admits  that  the  cups,  pots  and  brazen 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  59 

vessels  may  possibly  have  been  immersed  all 
over  in  water.  But  he  thinks  it  improbable. 
*'  And  to  suppose  that  the  beds  or  couches  were 
immersed  would  be  preposterous,  especially  if 
we  consider  the  superstition  of  the  Jews,  which 
led  them  to  practice  these  purifications  many 
times  a  day."  But  where  do  we  learn  this.'' 
Not  surely  in  this  account  in  Mark;  and  I 
know  of  no  authority  whatever  for  the  state- 
ment. 

To  what  Dr.  P.  says  on  pp.  61  and  62,  and 
his  friend  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  on  p.  181,  I 
will  oppose  the  testimony  of  Maimonides,  a 
celebrated  Jewish  Rabbi  of  the  12th  century, 
styled  by  Dr.  P.  (p.  135)  "  the  great  interpre- 
ter of  the  Jewish  laio.'^  He  says,  "  Wherever 
in  the  law,  washing  of  the  flesh  or  of  clothes 
is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  a  bath."  "  In 
a  bath,  containing  forty  seahs  of  water,  (100 
gallons)  every  defiled  man,"  (except  in  certain 
special  cases)  "immerses  himself;  and  in  it 
they  immerse  all  unclean  vessels."  The  re- 
quisition to  immerse  vessels  before  using  them, 
extended  not  only  to  those  "  bought  of  the 
Gentiles,"  but  also  to  those  manufactured  by 
Jews:    ''care   is  to  betaken   about  them,  lo! 


60  EXAMINATION    OF 

these  must  be  immersed."  Particular  direc- 
tions are  given  respecting  the  immersion  of 
cups,  pots,  kettles,  glass  and  molten  vessels, 
couches,  &c.  "Abed  that  is  wholly  defiled, 
if  one  immerses  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure." 
"If the  Pharisees  but  touched  the  garments 
of  the  common  people,  they  w^ere  defiled,  and 
needed  immersion.'"* 

The  reader  is  desired  to  notice  that  Maimo- 
nides  is  here  giving  the  traditions  of  the  Jews; 
and  that  the  evangelist  declares  that  the  things 
mentioned  by  him  were  done  according  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Elders.  And  the  proof  which 
I  have  presented  here  applies  with  equal  force 
to  Luke  11:  38.  Baptize,  in  all  these  places, 
means  immerse  and  nothing  else. 

2.      The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Dr.  P.  justly  observes,  (p.  81,)  "The 
scriptures  represent  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
and  the  baptism  with  water  as  analogous.  The 
one  is  the  sign  or  emblem  of  the  other."  If, 
then,  outward  baptism  is  a  symbol  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  we  may  with  propriety 
reason  from  the  outward  symbol  to  the  spiritual 
fact.  But  would  it  be  safe  to  reason  from  the 
spiritual  fact  to  the  outward  symbol.'' 

*  Cited  in  Turney  on  Baptism,  p.  189. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  61 

I  know  of  no  writer  who  has  more  effectu- 
ally exposed  the  grand  fallacy  of  Dr.  P.,  and 
of  all  other  Pedo-baptist  writers,  in  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  than  his  friend 
of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  quoted  in  the  Appen- 
dix. One  has  only  to  read  p.  183  to  see  the 
perfect  absurdity  of  arguing  that  baptize 
means  to  sprinkle,  from  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  That  writer  gives  the  following 
words  as  synonymous  with  baptize,  because 
all  those  representations  are  given  of  the  com- 
municating and  receiving  of  spiritual  influ- 
ences, viz:  Sending  down;  Coming;  Giving; 
Falling ;  Shedding ;  Pouring ;  Sitting  or  Abi- 
ding ,  Anointing ;  Filling ;  Sealing.  To  which 
the  following  may  be  added:  Sprinkling;  (Ez. 
36 :  25.  Breathing ;  (John  20 :  22. )  Blowing ; 
(John  3:8,  Acts  2:  2,  4.)  Emission  of  sound, 
or  pidting  forth  of  the  voice;  (1  Kings  19:  12, 
13.)  Shining  as  the  light;  (2  Cor.  4:  6.) 
Drinking;  (1  Cor.  12:  13,  John  7:37,  39.) 
Now  the  proposition  is,  that  baptize  is  synony- 
mous with  all  these  words,  because  all  these 
words  are  used  to  describe  giving  or  receiving 
spiritual  influences!  If  this  is  so,  the  widest 
latitudinarian  could  not  desire  a  greater  variety 
of  modes  of  baptism  than  this  would  give  us 
6 


62  EXAMINATION    OF 

The  difficulty  with  Dr.  P.  would  be,  that  it 
would  fail  of  proving  that  "sprinkling  is  the 
ONLY   mode   of  baptism  made  known  in  the 

SCRIPTURES." 

The  "  plain  "  reader  will  feel  a  desire  by 
this  time,  I  apprehend,  "  to  turn  away  from 
this  scene  of  human  error  and  confusion." 
He  cannot  help  exclaiming,  Has  God  given 
any  foundation  in  his  word  for  such  an  absurd 
medley  as  this,  in  the  form  of  instructions  in 
relation  to  an  ordinance  which  ought  to  be  so 
plain  that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool, 
need  not  err  therein.'* 

The  grand  fallacy  of  Dr.  P.  and  his  friend 
of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  which  has  given  rise 
to  all  this  absurdity  and  confusion,  is  the  con- 
founding of  distinct  and  separate  facts.  They 
represent  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  to  be 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit;  whereas  it  needs 
only  a  little  discrimination  to  see  that  the  pour- 
ing out  is  one  thing,  and  the  baptism  another, 
which  follows  it.  The  Doctor  tells  us  about 
certain  water  pots  containing  two  or  three  fir- 
kins apiece,  where  the  Jews  washed  their 
hands,  and  performed  certain  purifications. 
Obviously,  before  any  purifications  could  be 
performed  by  means  of  those  water  pots,  they 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  63 

must  have  water  put  into  them.  Was  the 
pouring  of  water  into  those  pots  purification? 
Many  persons,  for  their  comfort  or  health, 
have  a  bath  in  their  house  where  they  daily 
bathe  their  entire  persons.  Now  before  they 
bathe  they  must  pour  water  into  the  bath.  Is 
this  pouring,  the  bathing?  The  reader,  I  trust, 
can  now  see  that  whatever  words  may  be  em- 
ployed to  designate  the  giving  of  the  Spirit, 
none  of  them  would  affect  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tize, because  the  baptism  is  a  separate  fact, 
which  folloivs  the  giving. 

And  now  let  us  look  at  that  separate  fact — 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  which  followed  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit — and  inquire  whether 
sprinkling  would  be  any  adequate  emblem  of 
it;  whether,  if  that  extraordinary  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit  shall  be  symbolized  by  any 
application  of  water  to  the  outward  man,  any 
thing  short  of  an  entire  immersion  would  be 
an  adequate  symbol?  In  Acts  2,  we  are  told 
"  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven, 
as  of  a  rushing,  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled 
ALL  THE  HOUSE  whcrc  they  were  sitting." 
"And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  physical  idea  on  which  the  fig- 
ure is  founded,  is  that  of  a  substance  immersed 


64  EXAMINATION    OF 

in  some  fluid  which  immediately  penetrates  and 
fills  it. 

A  scientific  writer  in  the  (British)  Monthly 
Review,  speaking  about  the  different  applica- 
tions of  electricity  for  the  cure  of  diseases, 
says:  "The  first  is  the  electric  bath;  so 
called,  because  it  surrounds  the  patient  with 
an  atmosphere  of  the  electric  fluid,  in  which 
he  is  plunged,  and  receives  positive  elec- 
tricity." Probably  most  readers  would  prefer 
the  word  immerse  here  to  the  word  plunge. 
Still  I  presume  that  no  scientific  reader  would 
think  this  language  even  unnatural.  But  if  it 
would  not  be  unnatural  to  say  a  person  is 
plunged  in  an  electrical  atmosphere  when  he 
is  so  entirely  surrounded  with  the  fluid  that  he 
is  charged  and  filled  with  it,  can  it  be  un- 
natural to  say  the  apostles  were  immersed  in 
the  Holy  Spirit  when  they  were  said  to  be  sur- 
rounded and  FILLED  with  those  influences.^ 
Prof  Robinson  judges  not;  he  calls  it  a  bap- 
tism IN  the  Holy  Spirit.  Says  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, "As  he  who  goes  into  the  water  and  is 
baptized  (immersed)  is  encompassed  on  all 
sides  by  the  ivaters,  so  were  they  completely 
baptized  (immersed)  by  the  Spirit.  The  water 
envelopes   externally;  but  the   Spirit   baptizes 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  65 

(immerses,  envelopes)  also,  and  that  perfectly, 
the  soul  within."  This  is  in  accordance  with 
the  representations  of  scripture  elsewhere. 
"  I  was  IN  the  Spirit."  "  Ye  are  in  the  Spirit." 
"  If  we  live  in  the  Spirit,  let  us  also  walk  in 
the   Spirit." 

3.      The  symbolical  import  of  baptism. 

(1.)  Baptism  is,  to  the  believer,  a  sign  of 
his  entire  separation  from  sin,  and  union  with 
Christ.  As  it  is  a  sign  of  this  entire  change  in 
all  its  particulars,  so  it  is  sometimes  put  far 
those  several  particulars.  Thus  separation 
from  sin  includes  a  removal  of  its  guilt.  Hence 
Peter  says,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  for  the 
remission  of  sins;"  i.  e.,  receive  the  sign  of 
the  remission  of  sins.  Hence  Annanias  says 
to  Saul,  *'  Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  thy  sins;"  i.  e.,  receive  the  sign  of  the  re- 
moval of  guilt.  Again,  separation  from  sin 
includes  deliverance  from  its  power  over  the 
soul,  and  hence  involves  repentance;  hence 
John  says,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water, 
into  repentance;"  i.  e.,  the  sign  of  repentance. 
But  this  whole  idea  of  separation  from  sin  and 
union  with  Christ,  including  all  its  parts,  is 
presented  by  Paul  in  Rom.  6:  3,  4.  The 
whole  argument  of  the  apostle  in  this  chapter 
6* 


66  EXAMINATION    OF 

rests  on  this  great  fact,  that  baptism  is  a  sign 
of  an  entire  separation  from  sin.  "How 
shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer 
therein?"  If  they  were  true  Christians,  they 
were  dead  to  sin ;  and  that  they  professed  by 
having  received  baptism,  the  appointed  sign 
of  separation  from  sin,  as  is  shown  in  the  next 
verse:  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death?"  To  be  baptized  into 
Christ  is  to  make  a  profession  of  the  name  of 
Christ,  of  the  reception  of  his  doctrines,  of 
submission  to  his  authority,  and  of  a  complete 
union  with  him.  Consequently  when  baptism 
is  properly  administered,  (and  Paul  is  reasoning 
here  on  the  supposition  that  it  was,  in  the  case 
of  those  whom  he  addressed,)  it  implies  faith 
in  the  subject;  and  he  who  is  thus  baptized, 
"is  baptized  into  Christ's  death."  Faith 
makes  him  one  with  Christ,  and  thus  he  be- 
comes, as  it  were,  a  participant  in  the  death 
of  Christ;  as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  he  is 
"  dead  with  Christ."  But  faith  not  only  im- 
plies a  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  it  also 
implies  a  union  with  him  in  his  resurrection. 
Not  only  is  the  believer  "  dead  with  Christ," 
he  is  also  "  risen  with  him."     He  is  thus  un- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  67 

der  most  solemn  obligation  to  be  dead  unto 
sin,  and  alive  unto  God.  I  need  not  remind 
the  reader  how  often  these  and  kindred  ex- 
pressions occur  in  the  apostolic  writings. 

On  these  premises  is  based  the  conclusion 
expressed  in  the  next  verse:  "Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him,  by  baptism  into  [his] 
death;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  his  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  That 
is,  because  faith  implies  all  that  is  expressed 
in  the  preceding  verse,  therefore  God  has 
ordained  that  believers  shall  be  baptized;  and 
when  believers  are  buried  by  baptism,  they 
express  by  that  visible  act  their  union  with 
Christ  in  his  death,  in  his  burial,  (hence 
buried  with  him)  and  in  his  resurrection;  and 
hence  are  laid  under  the  strongest  possible 
obligation  to  "  walk  in  newness  of  life."  The 
same  truth  is  expressed  in  Col.  2:  12:  ^^ Buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him,  through  faith,"  &.c.  It  is  only  those 
who  have  faith,  who  are  united  with  Christ 
in  his  burial  and  in  his  resurrection.  And 
that  union  with  Christ  is  symbolized  in  bap- 
tism. Those  who  "  through  faith  are  buried 
in   baptism,"    are    "buried  with    Christ  in 


68  EXAMINATION    OF 

baptism,"  and    "therein  also  they  are  risen 

WITH  HIM." 

The  reader  will  at  once  see  what  conclusion 
will  follow,  if  I  have  given  a  correct  view  of 
this  text.  New  Testament  baptism  cannot  be 
any  thing  but  the  immersion  of  believers. 
Though  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  baptizo 
has  fifty  meanings,  of  which  only  one  repre- 
sents a  burial,  the  forty-nine  ought  to  be  re- 
jected, and  the  one  chosen;  for  Paul  here  de- 
clares that  a  BURIAL  IS  expressed  in  baptism 
for  the  reason  that  nothing  else  is  an  adequate 
sign  of  our  separation  from  sin,  and  our 
union  with  Christ.     "  THEREFORE  we  are 

BURIED   WITH  HIM  IN  BAPTISM." 

Dr.  P.  says, — let  the  "  plain  "  reader  mark 
it — jcZP  "  There  is  no  allusion  in  these  pas- 
sages to  the  mode  of  water  baptism!"  These 
*'  are  expressions  concerning  spiritual  baptism 
which  have  really  no  bearing  on  the  subject!" 
"  The  resurrection  spoken  of,  is  plainly  spirit- 
ual. It  is  to  newness  of  life.  Consequently 
being  buried  with  Christ  must  be  spiritual." 
(p.  110.)  Again,  on  p.  Ill,  he  says  on  Col. 
2:  12,  "  The  person  plunged  in  water  ibises  by 
the  muscular  strength  of  the  man  who  plunges 
him,  or  at  least  by  physical  power.     But  Paul 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  69 

says,  '  Ye  are  risen  with  him  through  faith.'  " 
All  this  is  true.  I  have  expressly  stated  that 
the  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial  and 
resurrection  is  by  faith.  But  that  is  not  all 
the  truth.  Paul  says  that  it  is  not  only  by 
faith,  but  it  is  also  "by  baptism"  and  "in 
baptism,"  that  we  are  buried  and  risen  with 
Christ.  And  what  can  that  mean  except  that 
baptism  symbolizes  this  union  with  Christ? 
When  Annanias  says  to  Saul,  "  Arise  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,"  will  Dr. 
P.  claim  that  water  baptism  cannot  be  meant 
here,  because  water  baptism  cannot  wash 
away  sins,  and  therefore  he  must  mean  spirit- 
ual baptism?  When  Peter  says,  "Repent 
and  be  baptized,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,"  will  he  claim  that 
because  water  baptism  cannot  be  a  ground  of 
remission  of  sins,  therefore  Peter  meant  spirit- 
ual baptism?  Every  reader  must  see  that 
there  are  just  as  good  grounds  for  denying 
water  baptism  in  these  passages,  as  in  the  one 
under  consideration.  And  they  are  to  be 
taken  in  the  same  way,  viz:  as  speaking  of 
baptism  as  a  symbol  of  the  facts  and  truths 
mentioned.  If  I  were  a  Quaker,  I  could  wish 
no  better  ground  to  plant  myself  on,  to  prove 


70  EXAMINATION    OF 

that  no  water  baptism  is  required  in  the  New 
Testament,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
than  Dr.  P.  gives  me  on  this  passage. 

The  following  expression  is  calculated  to 
awaken  some  surprise  in  the  mind  of  "  indus- 
trious ignorance/^  ''Must  Baptist  writers  in- 
sist on  it  that  these  passages  have  reference 
to  the  mode  of  water  baptism!"  The  "plain  " 
reader  undoubtedly  infers  from  this  that  nobody 
but  Baptists  ever  dreamed  of  so  wild  an  in- 
terpretation! As  a  piece  of  information  which 
I  conceive  he  is  entitled  to  have,  I  will  just 
remark  that  of  all  the  fathers,  Greek  and 
Latin,  all  the  Catholic  interpreters,  all  the 
reformers,  all  the  Genevan,  and  Dutch,  and 
German  theologians,  all  the  German  com- 
mentators and  critics,  all  the  English  and 
Scotch  theologians  and  commentators,  and  all 
American  commentators,  not  more  than  three 
or  four  can  be  found  who  do  not  agree  that 
these  passages  refer  to  "  the  mode  of  water 
baptism."  I  do  not  believe  that  more  than 
two  can  be  found;  but  to  be  "  within  bounds," 
I  will  say  three  or  four.  "  Most  Baptist  wri- 
ters "  indeed!* 

*  Of  course  the  reader  will  not  understand  me  as  including^ 
under  the  head  of  "  commentators/'  controversial  writers 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  71 

After  saying  that  "  most  Baptist  writers  in- 
sist &c.,"  he  adds,  "There  are  some  ex- 
ceptions to  this  statement.  Dr.  Judson,  the 
Baptist  missionary,  and  Robinson,  the  Baptist 
historiaTi,  both  admit  that  these  passages  are 
misapplied  when  used  as  evidence  of  the  mode 
of  baptism. "  On  what  authority  Dr.  P.  makes 
this  statement  in  relation  to  Robinson,  he  does 
not  inform  us.  He  certainly  could  not  have 
made  it  on  the  authority  of  a  personal  ex- 
amination of  his  work.  After  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  his  "History  of  Baptism,"  I 
feel  safe  in  affirming  that  there  is  nothing  in 
that  work  which  furnishes  a  foundation  for  his 
statement,  Robinson  refers  to  that  passage  in 
Romans  several  times,  and  always  as  proving 
immersion  to  be  the  scriptural  and  apostolical 
baptism.  As  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in 
which  he  refers  to  it,  I  quote  the  following 
from  p.  76.  He  is  here  giving  an  extract  from 
a  homily  of  Basil,  in  which  the  following  oc- 
curs:  "It   is  necessary  to   the    perfection  of 

on  baptism.  I  mean  writers  whose  direct  object  was  the 
exposition  of  the  scriptures;  as  Scott,  Doddridge,  Henry, 
Clark,  Gill,  Macknight,  Stuart,  &c.  I  will  only  add  that  I 
have  not  made  the  declaration  above  without  particular  in- 
quiry. 


72  EXAMINATION    OF 

a  Christian  life  that  we  should  imitate  Christ, 
not  only  in  his  life,  but  also  in  his  death.  How 
can  we  be  placed  in  a  likeness  to  his  death? 
By  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  How 
are  we  to  go  down  with  him  into  the  grave? 
By  imitating  the  burial  of  Christ  in  baptism; 
for  the  bodies  of  the  baptized  are,  in  a  sense, 
buried  in  water.  The  water  exhibits  an  image 
of  death,  receiving  the  body  as  into  a  sepulchre; 
the  spirit  renews  the  soul,  and  we  rise  from  a 
death  of  sin  into  a  newness  of  life.  By  three 
immersions  therefore,  and  by  three  invocations, 
we  administer  the  ceremony  of  baptism." 

Mr.  Robinson  adds:  "  A  translation  of  the 
Lent  homilies  of  the  ancient  Greek  bishops 
could  not  be  read  to  any  congregation  of 
modern  Christians  without  great  absurdity, 
except  to  Baptist  assemblies,  and  there  they 
would  be  heard  in  raptures,  for  their  singular 

PROPRIETY  AND   BEAUTY." 

I  do  not  happen  to  possess  Dr.  Judson's 
sermon  on  baptism,  though  I  read  it  several 
years  since,  and  remember  nothing  like  what 
Dr.  P.  has  stated.  I  will  leave  it  for  the 
reader  to  judge  how  far  he  is  entitled  to  credit 
in  this  naked  statement,  without  quoting  a 
word  to  prove   it,  or  referring  us  to  any   book 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  73 

or  page,  especially  after  it  is  so  clear  that  he 
has  misstated  the  fact  in  relation  to  Robinson, 
and  as  that  too,  is  not  a  solitary  case  of  mis- 
statement. 

(2.)  Baptism  is  a  symbol  of  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from 
the  passages  already  considered,  Rom.  6:  4, 
5,  Col.  2:  12.  Baptism  could  not  be  a  symbol 
of  the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ  in 
his  burial  and  resurrection,  if  it  were  not  also 
a  symbol  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  How  expressive  immersion  is  as  a 
symbol  of  these  great  facts — how  utterly  un- 
meaning sprinkling  is  in  this  point  of  view, 
every  person  must  see.  Bishop  Hoadly  well 
observes,  "  If  baptism  had  been  performed 
by  the  apostles,  as  it  now  is  amongst  us,  we 
should  never  have  so  much  as  heard  of  this  form 
of  expression,  of  dying  and  rising  again  in  this 
rite." 

As  a  specimen  simply  of  the  manner  in 
which  different  writers,  both  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, speak  of  these  passages,  in  contrast  with 
the  remarks  of  Dr.  P.,  I  will  quote  two  or 
three.  I  might  fill  a  volume  with  similar 
citations. 

Chrysostom  says,  "  The  symbol  of  baptism 
7 


74  EXAMINATION    OF 

refers  at  the  same  time  to  burial  and  death, 
and  to  resurrection  and  life.  For  our  heads 
being  immersed  in  the  water,  as  in  a  sepul- 
chre, the  old  man  is  buried,  and  sinking  down, 
the  whole  is  concealed  at  once;  then  as  we 
emerge,  the  new  man  rises  again." 

Cyril.  "As  Jesus,  taking  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  died,  that,  having  put  to  death 
sin,  he  might  raise  thee  up  in  righteousness;  so 
thou  also  descending  into  the  water  and  being 
in  a  manner  buried  as  he  was  in  the  rock,  art 
raised  again,  walking  in  newness  of  life." 

The  expression  of  Doddridge  is  quite  re- 
markable. We  are  not  to  suppose  that  that 
great  and  good  man  was  possessed  of  the  gift 
of  prophecy;  but  had  he  in  the  exercise  of 
such  a  power  foreseen  the  issuing  of  some  late 
Pedo-baptist  books  on  baptism,  could  he  have 
expressed  himself  more  to  the  purpose  than  he 
does  in  the  following:  "  It  seems  the  part  of 
CANDOR  to  confess  that  here  is  an  allusion  to 
the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  as  most 
usual  in  those  early  times."  I  leave  the 
reader  to  make  his  own  reflections. 

The  great  Chalmers  whose  praise  is  in 
every  body's  mouth,  expresses  himself  as 
follows:   "Jesus   Christ   by   death    underwent 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  75 

this  sort  of  baptism, — even  immersion  under  the 
surface  of  the  ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged 
again  by  his  resurrection.  We,  by  being  bap- 
tized into  his  death,  are  conceived  to  have 
made  a  similar  translation;  in  the  act  of  de- 
scending under  the  water  of  baptism,  to  have 
resigned  an  old  life,  and  in  the  act  of  ascend- 
ing, to  emerge  into  a  second,  or  new  life." 

My  next  quotation  shall  be  from  the  last 
writer  on  the  subject,  Dr.  P.,  p.  110.  "  Dead 
bodies  are  not  plunged  into  the  earth  "!  How 
many  steps  are  there  from  the  sublime  to  the 
ridiculous!  "Nor  is  the  mode  of  burying 
the  dead  alike  among  all  nations."  No;  but 
it  is  reserved  for  Dr.  Peters,  of  all  men  in 
the  world,  to  find  any  nation  that  buries  the 
dead  by  sprinkling.  "  Christ  was  not  buried;'' 
so  Dr.  Peters — Paul  says  he  ivas  buried; 
(1  Cor.  15:  4,)  so  says  Christ  himself;  (Mat. 
^6:  12,)  "but  laid  in  a  tomb  hewn  out  of 
a  rock,  probably  above  ground."  So  Dr. 
Peters;  Christ  says  he  was  "three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.'"  Is  not 
the  reader  almost  ready  to  "  turn  away  from 
this  scene  of  human  error  and  confusion  "  ? 

After  these   miserable  cavils,  unworthy  the 
name    and   reputation    of  Absalom    Peters, 


76  EXAMINATION    OF 

need  I  say  to  "plain  men,"  that  the  body  of 
Christ  was  surrounded,  covered,  with  the  sub- 
stance of  which  his  sepulchre  was  composed, 
whence  Chalmers,  with  perfect  propriety  of 
language,  calls  his  burial  an  immersion;  and  so 
in  the  rite  of  baptism,  the  subject  is  surrounded, 
covered,  with  the  baptismal  water,  whence  it 
is,  with  great  beauty  and  force,  called  a.burial. 
Need  the  reader  be  also  reminded  that  the 
comparison  in  the  passages  under  considera- 
tion is  not  with  "burning  the  bodies"  of  the 
dead,  nor  with  "hanging  them  up  till  the 
flesh  decays,"  but  specifically  with  the  burial 
of  Christ. 

But  we  must  have  one  more  quotation  from 
Dr.  P.,  (p.  112.)  "Christian  baptism  is  a 
symbol  of  moral  purity,  of  being  cleansed 
from  sin,  and  renovated  by  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  signifies  that  we  are  both 
dead  and  risen  at  the  same  time;  dead  to  sin, 
but  alive  to  holiness."  I  could  scarcely  ex- 
press my  own  view  with  more  force  and  clear- 
ness than  Dr.  P.  has  done  it  here  for  me.  If 
Dr.  P.  will  stand  by  this  declaration,  he  must 
agree  with  me  on  this  passage.  He  cannot 
avoid  it.  If  Christian  baptism  signifies  that 
we  are   both  dead  and  risen  at  the   same  time, 


PETERS    ON    BAPTIS3I.  77 

may  it  not  signify  that  we  are  both  buried  and 
risen  at  the  same  time  ?  Witliout  insisting  on 
the  fact  that  the  expression  of  the  apostle  is 
*' BURIED  and  risen,"  instead  of  dead  and 
risen,  does  not  the  expression  dead  and  risen 
imply  burial?  and  has  not  Dr.  P.  conceded  the 
whole  argument?  As  to  what  is  said  of  "dead 
men's  bones"  and  "natural  corruption,"  if  it 
has  any  force,  it  applies  against  himself,  and 
not  against  us.  He  says  that  baptism  signi- 
fies that  we  are  "dead  and  risen."  But  being 
dead  certainly  suggests  the  idea  of  "physical 
decomposition,  and  natural  corruption,  and 
dead  men's  bones."  But  ive  say  it  signifies 
being  buried  and  risen: — the  burial  having  an 
allusion  specifically  to  the  burial  of  Christ, 
who  was  laid  in  a  "new  tomb,  wherein  never 
man  was  laid,"  and  where  consequently  there 
were  no  "dead  men's  bones;"  and  he,  it  is 
said,  "saw  no  corruption."  The  only  way 
therefore  for  Dr.  P.  to  escape  from  himself,  is 
to  say  "  Christiai\  baptism  signifies  that  we 
are  both  buried  arid  risen, '^  instead  of  "  dead 
and  risen;''^  bearing  in  mind  that  burial  implies 
death,  I  should  then  have  no  controversy 
with  him  about  this  passage. 

The  reader,  I  trust,  will   now  see  that  these 
7* 


78  EXAMINATION    OF 

passages  (Rom.  6:  4,  5,  Col.  2:  12,)  contain 
express  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism.  If  he  sees  this,  he  cannot  fail  of 
seeing  that  the  following  inferences  necessarily 
follow. 

1.  Baptism  in  the  time  of  Paul  was  uni- 
versally immersion.  "  So  many  of  us  as  were 
BAPTIZED,"  &c.  "Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism."  It  is  positively  uni- 
versal.    It  admits  no  exceptions. 

2.  The  subjects  of  baptism  at  that  time 
were  always  presumed  to  be  believers.  "  So 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death." 
**  Like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  his  Father,  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  "  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism  wherein  ye  are  also  risen  with 
him  through  faith." 

(3.)  Baptism  is  a  symbol  of  the  resurrection 
and  glorification  of  the  believer. 

Inasmuch  as  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is 
the  assurance  and  pledge  of  the  resurrection 
of  all  his  followers,  whatever  is  a  symbol  of 
the  first,  is  to  a  like  extent  a  symbol  of  the 
last.     Dr.   Macknight*  judges, — I  think  with 

*  A  Presbyterian. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  79 

good  reason — that  the  resurrection  of  believers 
is  included  in  those  expressions  of  Paul  in 
Rom.  6,  "  walk  in  newness  of  life  " — "  being 
planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection." 

The  passage  in  1  Cor.  15:  29,  is  quoted  on 
p.  108,*  with  an  exposition  from  Dr.  Schmucker, 
referring  it  to  an  early  custom  of  vicarious 
baptism,  of  the  existence  of  which  in  apostolic 
times,  the  New  Testament  gives  us  no  intima- 
tion. Dr.  P.  thinks  its  signification  somewhat 
obscure.  He  would  translate  huper  (for)  over', 
which  is  its  more  usual  signification.     Still /or, 

*  Prof.  Robinson  rejects  entirely  the  notions  advanced  by 
Dr.  Peters  on  this  passage,  as  unfounded  and  absurd.  He 
gives  two  modes  of  explanation  of  the  passage,  both  of  which 
he  says  "  are  natural,  and  give  an  easy  and  satisfactory 
sense.  The  one  sets  out  from  the  literal,  and  perhaps 
original  meaning  of  haptizo,  to  immerse,  immerge,  i.  e.,  so 
as  to  be  entirely  immersed,  or  sunk  in  any  thing  ;  as  to  be 
immersed  in  calamities.  The  argument  then  is,  '  If  the 
dead  rise  not  at  all,  of  what  avail  is  it  to  expose  ourselves  to 
so  many  dangers  and  calamities,  in  the  hope  of  a  resurrection, 
and  a  future  reward  ?  in  the  hope  that  we  shall  rise  again, 
and  enter  into  rest  ?  Since  if  the  supposition  be  true,  we 
are  dead,  a.nd  are  never  to  rise.'"  The  other  method  o' 
explanation  which  he  gives,  is  the  one  I  have  given  above 
and  which  I  incline  to  adopt.  He  says  this  view  is  adopted 
by  Neander  and  Wetsteinj  Barnes  also  adopts  it.  The 
reader  will  see  that  whichever  of  these  we  take  as  the  true 
explanation,  it  is  a  clear  proof  that  haptizo,  in  the  New 
Testament,  means  to  immerse,  or  overwhelm. 


80  EXAMINATION    OF 

or  in  behalf  of,  is  not  an  unusual  signification 
of  it,  with  the  genitive.  The  declaration  will 
then  be,  that  baptism  is  in  behalf  of  the  dead. 
Whenever  a  person  is  baptized,  he  presents 
in  symbol  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  with 
it  the  resurrection  of  all  who  are  by  faith 
united  with  Christ  in  his  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. It  is  thus  a  most  beautiful  ordinance; 
pointing  the  believer  to  most  precious  truth. 
Am  I  sorrowing  for  dear  friends  who  "  have 
fallen  asleep,"  and  who,  unbelief  would  say, 
have  "  perished  "  ?  I  see  in  this  most  signifi- 
cant ordinance  a  symbol  and  pledge  of  their 
glorious  resurrection.  Instituted  by  Christ 
for  this  purpose,  every  time  I  administer,  or 
witness  it,  I  have  in  effect  a  fresh  assurance 
from  the  Saviour  himself  of  the  precious 
reality  of  this  truth. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  import  of 
the  passage  in  1  Pet.  3:  21,  quoted  by  Dr.  P., 
p.  66.  I  will  quote  this  from  the  translation 
and  paraphrase  of  Macknight.  "To  which 
water,  the  antitype  baptism  now  saveth  us 
also — gives  us  the  assurance  that  ive  shall  be 
saved  out  of  the  grave — through  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ,  emblematicalhj  rejjresented 
in  baptism.''     He  calls  baptism  the  antitype  of 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  81 

the  waters  of  the  flood,  in  opposition,  as  the 
reader  will  see,  to  the  view  of  Dr.  P.  His 
reason  is  that  the  relative  pronoun  agrees  in 
gender  with  the  noun  rendered  water,  but  does 
not  with  arh;  water,  therefore,  must  be  its  an- 
tecedent. From  his  note  I  extract  the  follow- 
ing: "The  water  of  baptism  is  here  called 
the  antihjpe  to  the  water  of  the  flood,  because 
the  flood  was  a  type  of  baptism  in  the  follow- 
ing particulars:  1.  As  by  building  the  ark 
and  by  entering  into  it  Noah  showed  a  strong 
faith  in  the  promise  of  God,  concerning  his 
preservation  by  the  very  water  which  was  to 
destroy  the  antediluvians,  so  by  giving  our- 
selves to  he  buried  in  the  water  of  baptism,  we 
show  a  like  faith  in  God's  promise,  that  though 
we  die  and  are  buried,  he  will  save  us  from 
death,  by  raising  us  up  from  the  dead  at  the 
last  day.  2.  As  the  preserving  of  Noah 
alive,  during  the  nine  months  he  was  in  the 
flood,  is  an  emblem  of  the  preservation  of  the 
souls  of  believers  while  in  the  state  of  the 
dead,  so  the  preserving  of  believers  alive 
while  buried  in  the  water  of  baptism,  is  a  pre- 
figuration  of  the  same  event." 

If  this  exposition  of  this  very  critical  and 
learned  commentator  is   correct,  the   reader 


82  EXAMINATION    OF 

will  see  that  the  remarks  of  Dr.  P.  on  p.  66, 
are  quite  irrelevant.  If,  however,  here  is  an 
allusion  to  the  position  of  the  ark,  the  proper 
meaning  of  baptize  is  still  fully  retained.  The 
ark  was  as  truly  immersed  as  if  it  had  been 
submerged  in  the  deep.  Beneath  it  were  the 
waters  which  bore  it  up;  above  and  around  it 
was  the  deluge  pouring  through  the  opened 
windows  of  heaven.  To  say  that  "the  ark 
was  sprinkled  with  the  rain  that  fell  from 
heaven,"  must  be  a  weak  conception  indeed 
of  the  deluge. 

I  have  now  shown  what  is  the  symbolical 
import  of  baptism.  I  have  shown  that  it  is  a 
sign  of  the  believer's  union,  by  faith,  with 
Christ,  in  his  death,  burial  and  resurrection, 
and  consequently  of  his  entire  separation 
from  sin ;  including  hence  the  washing  away 
of  sin,  or  spiritual  purification; — that  it  is 
also  a  symbol  of  the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  believer's  future  and 
glorious  resurrection.  Not  one  of  these  truths 
can  be  expressed  without  representing  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  And  no 
external  rite,  involving  the  application  of 
water,  can  express  these  great  truths,  but  im- 
mersion.    The  symbolical   import   of  the  or- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  83 

dinance  decides  that  baptize,  so  far  as  it  ex- 
presses a  physical  act,  means  only  immerse. 

4.      Other  figurative  allusions  to  baptism. 

The  remaining  figurative  allusions  to  bap- 
tism are  two.  The  first  is  expressed  in  Luke 
12:  50,  and  Mat.  20:  22.  "  I  have  a  baptism 
to  be  baptized  with."  "Are  ye  able  to  be 
baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with  .'"'  Dr.  P.  is  wisely  silent  in  regard  to 
these  passages;  whether  candidhj  silent,  I 
leave  for  the  reader  to  judge.  Christ  is  here 
speaking  of  his  sufferings;  and  he  calls  them 
a  baptism.  Now  I  ask  the  Christian  to  take 
his  Bible  and  first  read  the  prophetic  descrip- 
tions of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  Ps.  22  and 
69,  Isa.  53,  and  then  read  the  history  of  those 
sufferings  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross;  and 
while  you  read,  and  weep,  and  adore,  ask 
yourself  whether  the  word  sprinkle  describes 
those  sufferings!  Dr.  P.  says  the  word  bap- 
tize means  sprinkle  in  the  New  Testament; 
what  does  the  Savior  say  it  means.''  No  finite 
being  could  conceive  of  his  sufferings  as  he 
himself  could;  and  of  all  words  in  the  Greek 
language,  he  employs  the  one  which  he  used 
when  he  gave  the  command  to  baptize.  He 
did  not  mean  sprinkle  now;  nothing   less  than 


84  EXAMINATION    OF 

immerse  could  he  mean;  what,  on  the  clearest 
principles  of  interpretation,  could  he  have 
meant  when  he  gave  the  command  to  baptize? 
I  do  not  speak  disparagingly  of  the  book  I  am 
now  examining,  when  I  say  that  myriads  of 
such  books  would  be  nothing  to  me,  in  com- 
parison with  this  one  expression  from  the  lips 
of  our  blessed  Lord  and  Master. 

The  other  figurative  allusion  to  baptism  is  in 
1  Cor.  10:  2,  quoted  by  Dr.  P.  on  p.  63.  The 
Israelites  "  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Dr.  P.  says  "  The 
reference  is  to  Exod.  14  :  19,  &c.,  where  it 
is  most  manifest  that  water  was  poured  or 
sprinkled  on  them  from  the  cloud  "  !  Most 
manifest!  It  is  fortunate  that  we  all  have 
Bibles.  He  adds,  "Prof.  Stuart  says — I 
know  not  on  what  authority — '  the  cloud  on 
this  occasion  was  not  a  cloud  of  rain  '  "  !  On 
what  authority  ?  Is  there  a  Sabbath  scholar 
in  New  England  that  needs  to  be  told  that 
the  cloud  on  this  occasion  was  the  cloud  of 
the  Divine  presence  that  constantly  at- 
tended the  Israelites — the  pillar  of  cloud  by 
day,  and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night  ?  It  is 
said  that  on  this  occasion  (as  always  in  the 
night,)  it  was  light  to  Israel;  how  could  that 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  85 

be  if  rain  was  falling  on  them  so  violently  that 
it  might  be  said,  "The  clouds  poured  out 
water  "  ?  The  pouring  out  of  water  and  the 
dashing  of  the  spray,  the  creations  of  Dr.  P.'s 
imagination,  would  have  been  a  serious  hin- 
drance to  the  Israelites,  and  are  in  direct  con- 
tradiction to  the  historian,  who  says  they  went 
through  on  "  dry  land.^^  But  does  not  Asaph 
say,  "The  clouds  (not  cloud — the  pillar  of 
cloud)  poured  out  water".''  Yes;  and  we 
have  every  reason  to  suppose  they  did  on  the 
Egyptians.  They  doubtless  had  blackness, 
rain,  thunder  and  lightning — every  thing  that 
could  annoy  or  terrify  them.  They  were  the 
sprinkled  party.  As  for  the  other  showers  of 
rain,  referred  to  by  Dr.  P.,  they  are  not  in 
point,  for  the  baptism  in  the  cloud  was  at  the 
same  time  with  the  baptism  in  the  sea. 

It  is  strange  that  good  men  will  put  God's 
word  to  the  torture  to  make  it  say  something 
which  it  does  not  say.  What  does  Paul  say? 
"All  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.''"' 
Not  in  the  cloud  alone;  nor  in  the  sea  alone; 
"in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;"  it  required 
both  at  once  to  make  a  baptism.  They  "  passed 
8 


86  EXAMINATION    OF 

through  the  sea;"  hence  the  sea  was  on  each 
side  of  them;  they  were  at  the  same  time 
" under  the  cloud;"  and  thus,  between  them 
both,  -they  were  completely  surrounded  or 
immersed.  A  sprinkling  or  pouring  here,  is 
totally  out  of  the  question.  They  are  said  to 
have  been  baptized,  because  in  that  ordinance 
the  baptismal  water  surrounds  the  individual 
immersed.  And  if  immersion  were  not  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  there  would  be 
no  force  in  this  allusion. 

An  expression  occurs  in  this  connection, 
(p.  65,)  which  seems  to  demand  a  passing  re- 
mark. *'  The  Egyptians  were  truly  immersed; 
they  were  'buried  in  immersion  unto  death,' 
as  our  Baptist  brethren  are  so  fond  of  say- 
ing." Had  Dr.  P.  contented  himself  with 
saying,  "The  Egyptians  were  truly  im- 
mersed," I  should  have  nothing  to  say.  It 
would  be  much  in  the  style  of  my  expression, 
"The  Egyptians  were  the  sprinkled  party." 
But  to  apply  to  them  that  expression  of  Paul's, 
"Buried  by  baptism  unto  death,"  seems  to 
me  to  border  upon  irreverence,  if  not  profane- 
ness.  True,  he  may  say  the  word  there  is 
baptism,  not  immersion;  but  what  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  the  word  baptism  does  mean  im- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  87 

mersion?  Then  he  will  be  found  to  have  used 
the  very  expression.  Nay,  I  think  if  he  ad- 
mit that  there  is  any  reference  to  outward 
baptism  at  all,  in  that  passage,  he  must  admit 
that  it  is  immersion,  since  it  is  a  burial. 

I  have  now  shown,  I  trust  to  the  reader's 
satisfaction,  that  the  New  Testament  proves 
the  meaning  of  baptize  to  be  immerse,  or 
overivhelm.  I  have  shown  it  from  its  use  of 
the  word  in  every  situation  m  the  New  Tes- 
tament except  the  historical  relations  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  those  will  be  in  due  time  consid- 
ered. I  will  now  ask  the  reader  to  consider 
what  ground  we  have  gone  over,  and  where 
we  now  stand.  It  has  been  shown  by  the  tes- 
timony of  some  of  the  ablest  Pedo-baptist 
philologists,  that  the  word  baptizo  in  the  clas- 
sics always  means  immerse.  It  has  been 
shown  by  similar  testimony,  admitted  also  by 
the  silence  of  Dr.  P.,  that  the  same  thing  is 
true  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Jewish-Greek 
writers,  down  to  the  writing  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. I  have  shown  it  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, excepting  of  course  the  passages  which 
describe  the  administration  of  baptism,  which 
are  the  ones  whose  import  we  wish  to  settle. 
And  now  I  ask,   am  I   not  entitled  to  claim. 


88  EXAMINATION    OF 

that  the  word  baptizo  always  means  to  im- 
merse? If,  in  every  other  case  except  when 
it  relates  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, in  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature, 
classical  and  sacred,  it  means  immerse,  can 
its  meaning  be  any  thing  else  when  it  relates 
to  that  ordinance? 

We  will  now  inquire  where  Dr.  P.  is. 


REDUCED  TO  ONE."     (p.  59.) 

It  would  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  a  happy 
circumstance,  if  all  the  questions  on  baptism 
could  be  reduced  to  one.  We  might  hope  to 
settle  that  one,  and  so  close  the  controversy. 
But  I  fear  the  one  will  be  found  to  contain  all 
the  rest;  so  that  if  all=one,  one=all.  But 
what  is  the  one  question  ?  "  Shall  the  water  be 
poured  or  sprinkled  on  the  person,  or  must  the 
person  be  dipped  or  immersed  into  the  water?" 
I  hope  the  reader  does  not  suppose  we  have 
any  new  question  here.  If  he  consider  it  a 
moment,  he  will  see  that  it  is  only  another 
form  of  stating  the  original  question  with 
which  Dr.  P.  started,  and  which  he  then 
called  "the  true   question:"     "What  is  the 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  89 

meaning  of  baptizo,  as  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, to  designate  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism?" When  "  the  true  question  "  is  settled, 
*'  the  one  "  will  be. 

But  we  will  follow  Dr.  P.  into  the  "  one." 
His  position  is,  "The  water  must  be  applied 
to  the  person,  and  not  the  person  to  the 
water." 

But  how  is  this  position  proved.''  First,  by 
declaring,  what  surely  no  one  would  deny, 
that  in  the  sprinkling-s  under  the  law,  the 
water  was  applied  to  the  subject,  and  then  re- 
peating the  old  assertion,  that  Paul  called 
these  sprinklings  baptism.  I  have  shown  that 
Paul  did  no  such  thing.  So  much  for  this 
proof.  The  second  proof,  from  the  baptizing 
before  dinner,  and  the  baptism  of  cups,  pots, 
brazen  vessels  and  couches,  I  have  considered 
and  proved  that  all  those  were  immersions. 
The  third  proof,  under  the  head  of  "  figurative 
allusions,"  has  been  considered.  Omitting 
for  the  present  the  baptism  of  John,  the  next 
proof  is  the  "  prophecies  intimating  the  mode 
of  Christian  baptism."  p.  78.  These  proph- 
ecies are  "  So  shall  he  (Christ)  sprinkle 
many  nations."  "  Then  will  I  (God)  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean." 
8# 


90  EXAMINATION    OF 

Now  perhaps  Dr.  P.  supposed  that  some  of 
the  "  plain  men  "  for  whom  he  designed  his 
book,  would  be  taken  by  such  a  palpable  mis- 
application of  scripture  as  that;  and  because 
the  word  sprinkle  is  here  used,  conclude  it 
must  be  that  Christian  baptism  is  here  spoken 
of.  But  is  it  not  possible  that  they  may  notice 
that  the  prophecy  describes  what  Christ  and 
God  would  do,  not  what  ministers  would  do? 
Ministers  administer  Christian  baptism;  God 
and  Christ  will  do  the  sprinkling  referred  to. 
Bishop  Hughes  never  imposed  upon  Irish 
Catholics  a  more  palpable  perversion  of  scrip- 
ture, than  the  application  of  those  prophecies 
to  Christian  baptism. 

The  next  argument  is  on  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     That  has  been  considered. 

Such  are  the  arguments  which  Dr.  P.  advan- 
ces to  settle  the  "one"  question  to  which  all  the 
rest  may  be  reduced.  But  is  it  not  apparent 
to  the  reader  that  such  a  course  of  reasoning 
can  do  nothing  towards  settling  it  ? 

There  are  two  principles  on  which  this 
question  may  be  settled;  and  in  no  other  way 
can  it  be  done.  The  first  is  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  If  it  be  proved 
that  it  means  sprinkle,  then  every  body  allows 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  91 

that  the  water  must  be  applied  to  the  subject. 
In  no  other  way  can  a  sprinkling  be  performed. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  means  immerse,  in 
administering  the  rite  of  baptism,  the  subject 
must  be  applied  to,  or  rather  into  the  water. 
An  immersion  may  be  effected  by  applying  the 
^¥ater  to  the  subject;  but  it  could  not  be  in  a 
religious  ordinance.  And  after  having  proved 
that  baptizo  uniformly  means  immerse,  in 
classical  Greek,  in  Jewish  Greek,  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  (excepting  only  the  passages 
in  question)  am  I  not  entitled  to  affirm,  that 
so  far  as  this  principle  goes,  this  "  one  " 
question  is  settled,  and  it  is  proved  that  in 
baptism  the  subject  is  applied  to  the  water 
rather  than  the  water  to  the  subject? 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  BAPTIZO. 

The  other  principle  which  may  aid  in  set- 
tling the  "  one  "  question  is,  How  is  baptizo 
construed?  What  is  its  position  in  the  sen- 
tence, its  relation  to  the  nominative  case,  to 
the  object,  and  what  prepositions  follow  it? 
I  hope  no  *'  plain  "  reader  will  suppose  I  am 
putting  a  case  that  nobody  but  Greek  scholars 
can   understand.     I  trust  I  shall  set  this  point 


92  EXAMINATION    OF 

in  a  light  that  shall  make  it  intelligible  to  the 
plainest  common  sense  of  every  reader  of  the 
English  Bible. 

Suppose  the  word  baptize  means  pour; 
every  body  sees  that  we  could  have  no  such 
expressions  as  these  in  Greek,  or  any  other 
language:  "I  indeed  j^our  you  in  water;" 
"They  were  all  poured  of  him  in  Jordan," 
&c.  Every  body  sees  that  that  is  absurd;  and 
that  if  baptizo  is  the  word  employed  in  those 
passages  where  I  have  put  jjour,  that  word 
cannot  mean  pour. 

Again,  suppose  it  means  sprinMe;  every 
body  sees  that  such  expressions  as  the  follow- 
ing would  never  occur:  "  I  indeed  sprinkle 
you  in  water;"  "They  were  all  sprinkled  of 
him  m  Jordan;"  "  He  was  sprinkled  of  John 
into  Jordan. "  Nor  would  it  be  strictly  correct 
to  say,  "  I  sprinkle  you.ivith  water."  Custom 
has  indeed  sanctioned  it.  But  it  is  contrary 
to  the  proper  use  of  language.  The  word 
sprinkle  means  properly,  to  scatter  in  drops 
or  small  particles,  water,  blood,  ashes,  or 
whatever  the  substance  may  be.  We  should 
then  say,  "  I  sprinkle  water  on  you."  Water 
is  the  immediate  object;  the  person  besprinkled 
is  the  remote   object,  following  the  preposition 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  93 

on.  If  we  examine  the  Bible  we  shall  find 
that  this  is  the  more  usual  construction  of  the 
word  sprinkle. 

Again,  suppose  the  word  baptize  means  im- 
merse; every  body  sees  that  we  should  have 
no  such  expressions  as  "I  baptize  water  on 
you."  It  would  be,  "  I  baptize  you  m  water;" 
"They  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan;" 
"He  was  baptized  of  John  into  Jordan." 
Every  body  sees  that  we  could  use  the  word 
immerse  here  and  make  perfect  sense,  while 
the  words  pour  or  sprinkle  would  be  nonsense. 

Now  this  is  the  way  the  word  baptizo  is  al- 
ways used.  Vflienever  the  word  baptizo  occurs 
in  a  full  expression — i.  e.,  when  we  have  the 
nominative,  the  verb,  the  person  baptized  and 
the  element — the  person  baptized  is  the  immedi- 
ate object  of  the  verb,  and  the  element  follows 
the  preposition  en=in,  usually  expressed,  rarely 
understood.  The  preposition  eis=into,  is  some- 
times used.  Thus,  "  I  baptize  you  in  water." 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  affirming  positively  this 
proposition;  for  I  am  certain  that  no  person 
who  has  any  pretensions  to  Greek  scholarship 
will  dispute  it.  And  every  reader  will  see 
that  no  English  word  but  immerse  can  be  sub- 
stituted for  baptize   in  such  a  sentence.     We 


94  EXAMINATION    OF 

cannot  say,  "  I  pour  you  in  water;"  nor  "I 
sprinkle  you  in  water;"  it  must  be  "  I  immerse 
you  in  water." 

That  profound  scholar,  Dr.  George  Camp- 
bell, referred  to  by  Dr.  P.,  p.  29,  expresses 
these  same  sentiments  in  his  note  on  Mat.  3: 
11.  I  quote  from  him  to  show  that  I  am  not 
singular  in  the  statement  I  have  made,  and 
perhaps  the  fact  that  Dr.  Campbell  was  a  dis- 
tinguished Presbyterian  may  add  weight  to 
what  he  says.  "The  word  baptizo,  both  in 
sacred  and  classical  authors,  signifies  to  dip, 
to  plunge,  to  immerse,  and  is  ahcays  construed 
suitably  to  this  meaning.  Thus  it  is  in  water, 
in  the  Jordan.^' 

"Ezekiel  36:  25,  is  in  the  Septuagint,  'I 
will  sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water,'  and  not 
as  baptizo  is  always  construed,  '  I  will  sprinkle 
you  in  clean  water.'  Had  baptizo  been  here 
(i.  e.,  Mat.  3:  11)  employed  in  the  sense  of- 
raino,  I  sprinkle,  (which  so  far  as  I  know,  it 
never  is  in  any  use,  sacred  or  classical,)  the 
expression  would  doubtless  have  been,  '  I 
indeed  baptize  upon  you,  water;'  agreeably 
to  the  examples  referred  to." 

If  this  principle  is  correct,  (and  I  do  not 
believe  it  can  be  successfully  controverted)  it 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  95 

settles,  beyond  controversy,  that  the  true 
meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse.  It  settles 
too  Dr.  P.'s  "  one  "  question,  and  shows  that 
in  baptism  the  subject  must  be  applied  to  the 
water. 

And  how  will  Dr.  P.  escape  this  conclusion? 
By  claiming  that  the  preposition  en  (in)  em- 
ployed in  Mat.  3,  and  Mark  1,  does  not  mean 
in.  (p.  68.)  It  is  true  he  admits  more  than  we 
ask.  He  says  that  "  into  is  the  more  common 
meaning  of  this  particle."  He  is  the  first 
man  I  ever  heard  admit,  or  claim,  that  this 
particle  ever  means  into.  It  almost  always 
means  in;  it  is  very  rarely  translated  by  any 
other  preposition  when  its  meaning  in  does 
not  clearly  appear.  In  every  passage  which 
Dr.  P.  has  quoted  on  p.  68,  where  ivith  oc- 
curs, it  is  en  and  means  in.  *'  I  am  come 
baptizing  in  water."  "  I  indeed  baptize  you 
in  water  into  repentance;  he  shall  baptize 
you  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  Dr.  P.  says,  "It 
would  be  a  plain  perversion  of  the  passage  to 
say,  '  he  shall  immerse  you  into  the  Holy 
Ghost.'"  It  would  be  a  mistranslation,  be- 
cause it  is  in  and  not  into.  Prof.  Robinson, 
who  has  been  introduced  to  the  reader  as  the 
most    celebrated    biblical   critic    in   America, 


96  EXAMINATION    OF 

quoted  as  indisputable  authority  by  Dr.  P.  on 
p.  29,  does  not  think  it  a  plain  perversion  of 
language  to  say  "  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  for  so  he  translates  it.  Dr. 
Campbell  does  not;  he  translates  it  "m 
water,"  and  "  mi  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  ad- 
ministers the  following  rebuke  to  those  who 
translate  it  ivith'  "It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
we  have  so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and 
learned  men  allow  their  judgments  to  be 
warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the 
sect  which  they  prefer.  The  true  partizan, 
of  whatever  denomination,  always  inclines  to 
correct  the  diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the 
party."  The  reflecting  reader  can  think  of 
this;  bearing  in  mind  that  the  learned  Doctor 
is  speaking  of  this  specific  point — the  transla- 
tion of  Mat.  3:  11.  The  reader  can  see  too, 
after  what  I  have  shown  in  regard  to  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  so  far  from  "  He 
shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  being 
a  "  plain  perversion,"  it  is  precisely  what  the 
sense  requires. 

It  may  aid  the  unlettered  reader,  to  know 
that  the  preposition  en  occurs  eight  times  in 
Mat.  3.  If  haptizo  means  immerse,  it  has  its 
natural   and  proper  meaning  in,  in  every  in- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  97 

stance.  But  how  does  Dr.  P.  prove  that  "  the 
water  must  be  applied  to  the  subject  "  ?  When 
he  reads  this  chapter  he  gives  this  preposition 
its  proper  meaning  till  he  comes  to  the  sixth 
verse,  where  he  calls  it  at — then  it  is  in  again, 
till  he  gets  to  the  eleventh  verse,  and  there  he 
calls  it  ivith — then  it  is  in  to  ihe  close.  I  will 
leave  it  for  the  candid  reader  to  judge  who  is 
guilty  of  the  "  plain  perversion  "  of  the  word 
of  God. 

But,  as  if  to  hedge  the  way  against  any 
such  perversion,  Mark  is  still  more  explicit. 
He  says,  "were  all  baptized  i/i  the  river  of 
Jordan.''  Can  any  thing  be  clearer?  If  the 
Evangelist  wished  to  teach  that  baptism  im- 
plies the  application  of  the  subject  to  the  wa- 
ter, and  not  the  water  to  the  subject,  how 
could  he  do  it  with  more  explicitness.?  Again 
Mark  says  (1:  9,)  that  Christ  was  baptized 
"into  the  Jordan" — (eis  ton  lordanen);  ex- 
pressing still  more  strongly  the  same  idea. 

Now  let  the  reader  mark — Dr.  P.  will  ad- 
mit, that  the  more  common  meaning  of  these 
prepositions  is  in  and  into — indeed  no  man  has 
the  hardihood  to  deny  it.  But  that  is  prima 
facie  evidence  that  they  have  tljat  meaning 
here.  It  is  a  universal  rule  of  interpretation 
9 


98  EXAMINATION    OF 

that  every  word  shall  have  its  proper  meaning 
unless  there  is  clear  necessity  for  changing  it. 
But  what  is  the  necessity  here?  wCT'  The  ne- 
cessity of  Dr.  P.'s  theory  of  baptism;  not  a 
shadow  of  necessity  else.  Let  every  word  in 
the  record  have  its  proper  and  usual  meaning, 
and  baptism  is  proved  to  be  immersion;  and 
it  cannot  be  made  sprinkling  without  torturing 
the  record.  Nay,  it  is  not  made  then;  the 
torture  will  not  extort  it;  after  all  it  is  naked 
assumption. 

I  have  now  gone  over  the  most  essential 
points  in  Dr.  Peters'  first  part.  I  have  shown 
that  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  when 
our  Saviour  gave  that  command,  was  im- 
merse— that  was  its  meaning  as  settled  by 
uniform  usage,  in  classical,  Jewish,  and  the 
New  Testament  Greek.  I  have  shown,  both 
from  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  its  uniform 
construction,  that  the  idea  of  baptism  cannot 
be  the  application  of  water  to  the  subject, 
rather  than  the  reverse.  And  here  I  might 
stop.  After  this  is  shown  there  cannot  be 
much  weight  in  what  remains  untouched.  Still 
the  reader  may  desire  that  some  of  the  dust 
which  the  Doctor  has  thrown  around  the  New 
Testament     accounts     of  baptism   should    be 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  99 

brushed  away.  And  this  we  will  proceed  to 
do,  with  as  much  brevity  as  the  case  admits. 
We  will  first  address  ourselves  to  the  extra- 
ordinary conclusions  touching 

John's  baptism. 

In  Sect.  IV,  Dr.  P.  makes  some  remarks  in 
reference  to  the  nature  and  design  of  John's 
baptism.  He  labors  at  some  length  to  prove 
that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  bap- 
tism. And  what  if  it  was  not?  It  surely  was 
baptism,  and  Christian  baptism  is  baptism;  and 
when  we  have  ascertained  what  the  one  was, 
we  have  learned  all  that  in  our  present  in- 
quiry relates  to  the  other.  John's  baptism 
unquestionably  differed  in  some  particulars 
from  that  administered  by  the  apostles.  Still 
that  the  gospel  dispensation  opened  with  John's 
ministry,  is  evident  from  the  following  passa- 
ges: Markl:l.  Mat.  11:  12,13.  Luke  16: 
16.  That  the  gospel  dispensation  was  not 
fully  set  up  till  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
is  equally  evident.  Still  I  do  not  see  what 
bearing  that  has  upon  our  present  inquiry. 

Dr.  P.  makes  some  singular  statements  on 
this  point.     He  says  "  John's  baptism  was  ad- 


100  EXAMINATION    OF 

ministered  on  profession  o?  repentance ;  Chris- 
tian baptism,  on  profession  of  regeneration.^ 
TJiis  is  proved  (?)  by  reference  to  Acts  2:  38, 
where  Peter  says  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  "  ! 
He  says,  "As  to  any  recognition  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  John's  baptism,  some  whom  he  had 
baptized,  themselves  affirmed,  We  have  not 
so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy 
Ghost."  I  will  just  refer  the  reader  to  Mat. 
3:  11,  John  1:  32,  33.  To  account  for  the 
ignorance  of  those  disciples  in  regard  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  described  in  Acts  19,  we  may  re- 
mark that  it  is  not  said  that  John  baptized 
those  disciples.  They  said  they  were  bap- 
tized "  unto  John's  baptism."  Their  very  ig- 
norance furnishes  a  reason  for  believing  that 
he  did  not  baptize  them;   and  it  is  probable 

*  This  distinctioa  of  the  Doctor's  is  a  remarkable  one  for 
a  Calvinistic  writer  to  make.  Dr.  P.  has  as  good  a  right  to 
be  an  Arminian  as  I  have  to  be  a  Calvinist,  though  I  suppose 
he  is  generally  understood  to  be  a  Calvinist.  Calvinists 
usually  maintain  that  repentance  is  one  of  the  first  eviden- 
ces that  regeneration  has  alrtady  taken  place;  and  that  con- 
sequently a  profession  of  repentance  is  a  profession  of  re- 
generation. So  Baptists  hold  ;  and  they  administer  baptism 
on  precisely  the  same  principles  that  John  and  the  apostles 
did  5  viz,  to  those  who,  by  professing  repentance,  give  evi- 
dence of  having  experienced  regeneration. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  101 

that  it   was  done   by  some  one  of  John's  dis- 
ciples. 

He  says,  Paul  rebaptized  those  twelve  dis- 
ciples. That  is  by  no  means  clear.  Some 
Baptists  admit  that  he  did;  some  Pedo-baptists 
do  not  admit  that  he  did.  Suppose  he  did;  it 
will  not  prove  the  invalidity  of  John's  bap- 
tism. The  twelve  apostles  were  baptized  by 
John;  we  have  no  account  that  they  were 
rebaptized.  Apollos  knew  only  John's  bap- 
tism, but  Paul  did  not  rebaptize  him. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  representation 
is  as  to  the  number  baptized  by  John.  (Sect. 
VI.)  "To  be  within  bounds  (!)  respectable 
and  learned  (!)  writers,  have  supposed  that 
John  baptized  only  one-half  the  people  of  Pal- 
estine, say  three  millions  "  !  "  He  must  then 
have  immersed  more  than  one  every  two 
seconds  "  ! 

But  we  are  spared  the  necessity  of  replying 
to  this,  for  the  supposition  "  is  perhaps  ex- 
travagant." Perhaps  it  is.  It  seems  quite 
probable  that  it  may  be!  He  contents  himself 
with  supposing  it  to  be  "only  one-twelfth 
part."  That  would  be  500,000,  requiring  him 
to  baptize  "  six  every  minute  "  of  his  minis- 
try ! 

9# 


10^ 


EXAMINATION    OF 


Now  perhaps  all  this  looks  very  imposing  to 
Dr.  Peters'  "  plain  men."  But  let  us  scan  it 
a  little.  1.  Dr.  P.  himself  admits  that  the 
expressions  "All  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,"  no  more 
prove  that  John  baptized  one-half,  than  that 
he  baptized  the  whole.  To  which  I  add,  they 
just  as  much  prove  that  he  baptized  the  whole, 
as  that  he  baptized  one-twelfth.  They  only 
prove  that  a  large  number  iveoit  out.  2.  If  we 
allow  for  the  aged  and  infirm,  and  children, 
probably  not  more  than  one-twelfth  part  of  the 
population  could  have  gone  out  if  they  wished 
to.  3.  It  is  on  all  hands  allowed  that  the 
majority  of  the  Jews  belonged  to  the  sect  of 
the  Pharisees.  But  the  Pharisees,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  were  not  baptized  of  John.  (Luke 
7:  30.)  The  Sadducees  also  were  rejected. 
(Mat.  3:  7.)  4.  John  baptized  none  but  pro- 
fessed penitents.  5.  Christ  made  disciples 
in*  a  greater  ratio  than  John.  (John  3 :  26. 
4:  1.)  If  John  made  500,000,  since  Christ's 
ministry  was  twice  as  long  as  his,  there  could 
not  have  been,  at  the  time  of  Christ's  death 
less  than  a  million  and  a  half!  And  yet  Christ 
calls  them  a  little  flock!  6.  Every  represen- 
tation in  the  New   Testament,  and  every  con- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  103 

sideration,  would  go  to  show  that  but  a  very 
small  proportion  of  the  Jewish  people  were 
even  professed  penitents.  It  was  because  they 
had  filled  up  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  by 
rejecting  both  John  and  Christ,  (Mat.  11:  16, 
24,)  that  wrath  came  upon  them  to  the  utter- 
most. Ten  righteous  would  have  saved 
Sodom.  That  proportion  would  doubtless 
have  saved  the  Jewish  nation.  2000  would 
probably  be  a  small  estimate  of  the  popula- 
tion of  Sodom,  and  ten  would  be  the  two  hun- 
dredth part.  6,000,000-^200=30,000.  That 
I  have  no  doubt  is  a  large  estimate  of  the 
number  of  all  of  John's,  and  Christ's,  and  the 
apostle's  disciples  among  the  Jews  up  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Of  those,  John 
could  not  have  made  and  baptized  more  than 
one-third;  say  10,000.  John's  ministry  was 
a  year  and  a  half  instead  of  nine  months. 
This  I  could  prove  if  it  were  necessary.  I 
shall,  however,  content  myself  with  saying 
that  every  writer  that  I  have  seen,  except  Dr. 
Peters,  makes  it  not  less  than  that.  Deduct- 
ing the  Sabbaths,  and  we  have  470  working 
days.  10,000-!-470=22;  a  very  easy  day's 
work,  as  most  Baptist  ministers  can  testify. 
Now  I  do  not  wish  the  reader  to  understand 


104  EXAMINATIOxV    OF 

me  as  affirming  that  John  did  not  baptize 
more  than  10,000.  I  do  affirm,  however,  that 
it  is  as  easy  to  prove  that  he  baptized  less  than 
that,  as  it   is  to   prove  that  he  baptized  more. 

The  truth  is,  all  such  estimates  are  idle. 
The  historian  says  that  John  did  immerse.  He 
employs  a  word  that  uniformly  meant  immerse 
when  the  history  was  written.  He  says  that 
his  baptism  was  "  in  water, '^  "  in  the  Jordan," 
"in  the  river  of  Jordan."  He  baptized  in 
Enon  near  to  Salim  because  there  was  much 
water  there. 

But  Dr.  P.  says  there  is  no  intimation  in 
scripture  that  John  was  at  Enon  for  the  con- 
venience of  baptizing!  A  bold  assertion 
truly.  What  is  the  declaration?  "  John  also 
ivas  baptizing  in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because 
there  was  much  water  there."  Because  has 
reference  to  baptizing  and  nothing  else  that  is 
mentioned.  But  he  says  there  was  more  water 
in  the  Jordan;  why  did  he  not  stay  there.'* 
Well,  that  is  a  question  of  his  own  asking. 
The  historian  gives  no  reason.  If  it  were  my 
business  to  conjecture,  I  should  say,  because 
Christ  was  baptizing  in  Judea,  and  as  it  was 
not  necessary  that  two  such  preachers  should 
be   so   near,  John   went   farther  north.     But 


TETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  105 

that  is  nothing  here  nor  there.  I  take  the 
history  as  it  stands.  That  says  John  was 
baptizing  there  because  there  was  much 
water  there.  Bloomfield,  Doddridge,  and  a 
dozen  other  Pedo-baptist  commentators  that 
might  be  named,  assign  this  as  the  special 
reason. 

But  Dr.  P.  says  he  went  there  because  it 
furnished  "  accommodations  "  for  the  "  en- 
campment of  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands that  attended  on  his  ministry."  What 
intimation  is  there  of  all  this?  Great  multi- 
tudes followed  Christ;  but  they  never  en- 
camped; he  always  "sent  them  away"  the 
same  day  they  came.  So  Dr.  P.  finds  camels, 
horses,  asses — but  where  ?  It  must  be  in  his 
imagination.  The  multitudes  that  followed 
Christ  "  ran  afoot. ^'  Again,  "  he  was  attend- 
ed by  the  greatest  multitude  that  ever  assem- 
bled around  a  human  being  for  instruction." 
We  have  no  means  of  determining  how  great 
the  multitude  was  that  attended  him  at  Enon; 
but  we  find  his  disciples  complaining  that  all 
men  were  then  following  Christ  (verse  26). 
It  would  seem  that  the  multitude  must  then 
have  been  comparatively  small.  Then  it  was 
"many   streams,^'    instead  oi  "  much  ivater,^^ 


106  EXAMINATION    OF 

Well,  be  it  so.  It  is  true  the  Doctor  is  op- 
posed here  by  almost  all  of  his  own  commen- 
tators. But  it  is  of  little  importance.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  either  of  them  were  large 
enough  to  immerse  in.  The  simple  declara- 
tion of  the  historian,  that  John  was  baptizing 
there  because  there  was  much  water  there,  is 
good  against  all  the  fanciful  conjectures  that 
can  be  named.  The  history  gives  us  no  ac- 
count of  camels,  horses,  asses,  or  camp  meet- 


It  seems  to  have  occurred  to  Dr.  P.,  that 
possibly  the  "  plain  "  reader  would  perceive 
that  if  John  sprinkled  3,000,000,  or  500,000, 
in  the  way  it  is  ordinarily  done  by  Congrega- 
tional ministers,  it  would  be  as  impossible  for 
him  to  sprinkle  so  many,  as  it  would  be  to  im- 
merse them.  He  concludes,  therefore,  that 
John  (and  also  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost) ''  took  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  made 
it  sufficiently  large  for  his  purpose,  and  dipped 
it  in  water,  and  sprinkled  the  people  as  they 
came  to  him  in  large  numbers  at  a  time  "  !  If 
the  reader  has  a  tolerably  active  imagination, 
he  can  conceive  what  sort  of  an  exhibition  this 
would  be.  And  to  help  his  imagination,  I  will 
relate  the  following  fact,  which  may  be  relied 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  107 

on  as  perfectly  authentic.  Some  years  since, 
several  young  and  devoted  Congregational 
ministers  went  to  a  foreign  station  as  mission- 
aries. God  blessed  their  labors  to  such  a  de- 
gree that  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  bap- 
tize several  hundred  converts  at  one  time;  so 
many  that  sprinkling  them  one  by  one  would 
be  quite  "inconvenient."  Taking  their  cue, 
therefore,  from  such  books  on  baptism  as  the 
one  we  are  now  reviewing,  they,  on  the  ap- 
pointed day,  arranged  their  converts  "in 
ranks,"  and  with  a  white-tvash  brush  for  a 
"  bunch  of  hyssop,"  sprinkled  them  "  in  large 
numbers  at  a  time."  Feeling  some  misgivings 
afterwards,  they  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Pro- 
fessors of  the  Theological  school  where  they 
graduated,  in  relation  to  it.  The  Professors, 
as  was  their  custom  with  missionay  corres- 
pondence, read  the  letter  to  the  students  then 
in  the  seminary,  and  took  the  opportunity  to 
charge  those  students,  never,  in  any  circum- 
stances, to  he  guilty  of  such  a  perversion  of 
Christ^s  ordinances. 

These  young  missionaries  must  have  been 
stupid  indeed,  to  suppose  that  these  books  on 
baptism  are  written  for  theological  students 
or  ministers,  or  with  any  expectation  that  the 


108  EXAMINATION    OF 

''bunch  of  hyssop  "  would  ever  be  put  in 
practice.  They  were  written  for  "  plain  men  " 
with  no  practical  design,  except  to  keep  con- 
verts from  uniting  with  the  Baptists.  The 
"  bunch  of  hyssop  "  will  doubtless  prove  very 
effectual  for  this  purpose. 

THE    BAPTISM    OF    CHRIST. 

Dr.  Peters,  (pp.  57,   93,)  reiterates  the  old 
Pedo-baptist  hypothesis  that  Christ  was  bap- 
tized as  an   induction  into  his  priestly  office, 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses   in  Ex.  29:  4. 
Num.   8:   7.     But  he  admits  that  these  wash- 
ings    and    sprinklings    were     "purification." 
Paul    speaks    of  them    as    "purifying    of  the 
flesh;''  and  hence  calls  them  "  cania/,"  that 
is  fleshhj  "ordinances."     (Heb.    9:   10,    13.) 
Hence  he  says  that  the  Levitical  priests  were 
made   "after  the  law  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment;" i.  e.,  a  law  which  required   a  carnal 
or  fleshly   purification.     But  Christ,  he  says,^ 
was  a  priest,  "  nut  after  the  order  of  Aaron," 
but    "after   the  order  of  Melchisedek;"  that 
"  the    priesthood    being    changed,  there  is    of 
necessity  a  c/wng-e  also  of  the  law;  that  "Christ 
sprang   out   of  Judah,    of  which  tribe   Moses 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  109 

ke  nothing  concerning  priesthood."  It 
must  therefore  follow  that  what  Moses  spoke 
concerning  the  consecration  of  Levitical 
priests,  could  have  no  application  to  Christ. 
'*  And  this,"  says  Paul,  "is  far  more  evident; 
for  that  after  the  similitude  of  Melchisedek 
there  ariseth  another  priest,  who  is  made,  not 

AFTER  THE    LAW  OF  A     CARNAL   COMMANDMENT, 

but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life."  (Heb. 
7:  11,  16.)  But  after  Paul  has  said  this,  Dr. 
Peters  persists  in  saying  that  Christ  ivas  made 
a  priest,  after  the  law  of  the  carnal  command- 
ment, in  Ex.  29:  4,  Num.  8:7! 

But  Dr.  Peters  says  Christ  exercised  the 
office  of  priest  during  his  personal  ministry, 
and  in  that  character  purged  the  temple.  But 
Paul  says  "  Christ  came  a  high  priest  of  good 
things  to  come,  by  a  tabernacle  not  made  with 
hands'/^  (Heb.  9*  11,)  and  that  "if  he  were 
on  earth  he  should  not  be  a  priest;"  as  Dod- 
dridge expresses  it,  "he  could  not,  in  any 
consistence  with  the  Jewish  institutions,  have 
been  a  priest  to  ofUciate  at  the  temple  of  God  in 
Jerusalem."  Now  I  leave  it  for  "  plain  men  " 
to  judge,  whether  Dr.  Peters'  and  Mr.  Hib- 
bard's  conjecture  of  what  Christ  would  have 
said,  if  the  Jews  had  said  something  which 
10 


110  EXAMINATION    OF 

they  did  not  say,  ought  to  weigh  against  these 
explicit  declarations  of  Paul.  1  take  it  the 
authority  on  which  Christ  did  the  act  referred 
to,  was  his  being  the  Son  of  God,  i.  e.,  the 
Messiah;  and  that  he  intimates  as  much  when 
he  says,  '  'Make  not  my  Father's  house  a  house 
of  merchandize;"  and  that  he  designed  to  show 
to  those  priests  that  their  authority,  founded 
on  the  law  of  the  carnal  commandment  in  Ex. 
29 :  4,  was  fast  giving  way  to  the  power  of  an 

ENDLESS    LIFE. 

But  at  all  events,  Christ  was  not  immersed! 
Who  says  he  was  not?  R.  W.  Landis  in 
"Kabbah  Taken"!  On  what  evidence? 
Why,  at  this  day,  Jewish  pilgrims  kneeling 
in  the  Jordan  sprinkle  themselves!  The  ques- 
tion is  settled.  Let  no  man  hereafter  say  that 
Christ  was  immersed! 

But  the  preposition  apo,  translated  out  of, 
does  not  necessarily  mean  more  than  from. 
That  is  freely  admitted.  But  still  it  does  not 
exclude  the  idea  of  out  of.  The  preposition 
from  in  English  does  not  mean  out  of  but  still 
it  may  be  used  instead  of  oid  of.  The  account 
states  that  John  baptized  Jesus  into  the  Jordan ; 
and  when  he  was  baptized  he  came  up  straight- 
way/row  the  water.    Could  he  have  been  bap- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  Ill 

tized  into  the  Jordan,  and  come  up  from  the 
water,  without  having  been  m  the  water? 
Suppose  I  were  to  say,  "  On  my  return  from 
Pittsfield,  I  called  on  a  friend;  and  after  I  had 
dined,  I  went  immediately  from  his  house  to 
my  home;"  would  any  body  attempt  to  prove 
that  I  was  not  in  Pittsfield,  and  that  I  did  not 
enter  my  friend's  house?  Do  you  say  that 
the  circumstance  of  dining  proves  that  I  was 
in  the  house  ?  I  answer,  the  fact  of  Jesus 
being  baptized  into  the  Jordan,  proves  that  he 
was  in  the  water. 

Dr.  Whitby,  a  well  known  Pedo-baptist 
commentator  says,  "A  doubt  whether  John 
immersed  Jesus,  must  arise  from  ignorance." 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    THREE    THOUSAND. 

Dr.  Peters  has  restated  and  magnified  the 
difficulties  usually  urged  by  Pedo-baptist 
writers,  in  the  way  of  immersing  the  3000  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  Two  and  a  half  pages 
are  devoted  to  showing  that  there  was  no 
water  for  their  immersion!  Dr.  Gill  answered 
this  objection  in  his  day.  Every  Pedo-baptist 
writer  since  then  has  brought  it  up  again,  and 
every  Baptist  writer   has   answered   it.     But 


112  EXAMINATION    OP 

Dr.  P.  brings  it  up  without  taking  the  least 
notice  of  those  answers,  and  as  if  it  \yere  not 
only  unanswered,  but  unanswerable.  Now  let 
me  remind  the  reader  that  the  3000  might  have 
been  immersed  without  going  out  of  the  tem- 
ple. There  were  ten  brass  lavers,  each  con- 
taining over  nine  barrels  of  water,  and  the 
great  brazen  sea,  that  contained  over  five 
hundred  barrels  of  water.  But  Dr.  P.  says, 
"The  implacable  opposition  of  the  priests  and 
of  the  Jews  in  general,  must  have  prevented 
their  using  them."  The  historian,  however, 
intimates  no  such  thing.  He  says,  (Acts  2: 
46,  47,)  "  They  continued  daily,  with  one  ac- 
cord, in  the  temple,  praising  God,  and  having 
favor  with  all  the  people.^'  It  does  not  appear 
from  this  that  their  movements  were  at  all  in- 
terfered with,  or  interrupted,  at  this  time,  by 
priest  or  people. 

It  is  carrying  controversy  a  little  too  far,  to 
urge  this  objection  about  want  of  water,  after 
the  publication  of  Prof  Robinson's  book  on 
Palestine.  Jerusalem  abounded  in  cisterns, 
reservoirs,  fountains  and  pools.  Prof.  Robin- 
son devotes  nineteen  pages  to  a  description  of 
the  abundant  means  of  supplying  Jerusalem 
with  water. 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  113 

But  this  difficulty  surmounted,  a  greater  re- 
mains. There  were  only  eleven  administra- 
tors; for  "  only  ten  days  had  intervened  since 
the  apostles  had  received  their  own  commis- 
sion from  the  Saviour,  and  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  their  having  ordained  any  person 
during  that  time  "  !  Have  we  not  a  very 
circumstantial  account  of  the  ordination  of 
Matthias?  Then  "  after  the  close  of  Peter's 
sermon,  there  were  only  five  hours  of  the  day 
remaining."  How  long  does  he  suppose 
Peter  preached?  It  was  only  nine  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  after  he  began  to  preach.  (Acts 
2:  15.)  One  hour,  I  apprehend,  would  be  a 
large  estimate  of  the  time  of  his  sermon,  and 
that  will  leave  eight  hours  for  the  baptism.  In 
that  case,  the  apostles  would  only  have  to 
baptize  less  than  thirty-two  every  hour.  Be- 
sides, if  they  had  to  baptize  "  fifty  every  hour, 
and  five  every  six  minutes,"  that  would  not 
have  been  "impossible."  That  has  often 
been  done,  by  Baptist  ministers  in  America. 
But  how  does  Dr.  P.  know  that  the  seventy 
"  took  no  part  in  the  services  "  ?  There  were 
one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples  there,  as  we 
are  expressly  informed,  who  took  part  in  the 
ordination  of  Matthias;  why  may  they  not  all 
10* 


114  EXAMINATION    OF 

have  taken  part  in  this  baptism?  Is  baptism 
any  more  a  peculiarly  ministerial  work,  than 
ordination?  If  the  seventy  took  part  in  this 
baptism,  there  would  have  been  less  than  forty 
persons  for  each  minister. 

It  might  be  instructive  to  the  reader  to  men- 
tion in  this  connection  some  things  which  have 
been  done  in  the  way  of  baptizing.  The  fol- 
lowing facts  are  related  by  Pres.  Sears,  in  the 
Christian  Review,  vol.  3,  p.  91,  where  the  his- 
torical authorities  are  stated. 

On  the  great  Sabbath  of  the  Easter  festival, 
April  16,  404,  Chrysostom,  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, with  the  assistance  of  the  clergy 
of  his  own  church,  baptized  3000  catechu- 
mens. And  he  immersed  them ;  for  Chrysostom, 
who  in  innumerable  instances  in  thirteen  folio 
volumes  speaks  of  baptism,  never  alludes  to 
it  as  a  sprinkling,  but  on  the  contrary,  defines 
it  to  be  "a  plunging  into  the  water,  and  a 
raising  out  of  it;"  and  says  that  "we  enter 
into  water  as  into  a  grave,"  and  that  "the 
whole  man  is  concealed  by  the  immersion." 

In  496,  according. to  several  French  histo- 
rians, (one  of  them  the  successor  of  Remi- 
gius,)  Remigius,  Bishop  of  Rheims,  assisted 
by  his  Presbyters,   baptized  in  one  day,  Clo- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  115 

vis,  the  French  king,  and  3000  of  his  subjects. 
As  to  the  mode,  the  historians  say  that  the 
"Bishop  raised  the  king  out  of  the  water. ''^ 

Otho,  the  apostle  of  the  Pomeranians,  in  a 
short  stay  at  one  place,  baptized  7000  of  the 
Pomeranians.  And  the  account  renders  it 
more  than  probable  that  they  were  all  bap- 
tized in  two  days.  It  is  related  by  an  eye 
witness,  who  describes  minutely  the  construc- 
tion of  the  baptisteries  used,  calling  them 
*' great  vats  sunk  into  the  earth,"  and  says 
expressly  that  the  ordinance  was  administered 
by  a  "  trine  immersion" — ^' trina immersione.^^ 

These  facts  are  sufficient  to  settle  the  possi- 
bility of  immersing  the  3000  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    EUNUCH. 

Dr.  p.  in  his  remarks  on  this  account,  de- 
scends to  the  usual  trifling  of  Pedo-baptist 
controversialists,  by  affirming  that  if  the  ex- 
pressions "They  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch — they  M^ere 
come  up  out  of  the  water,"  prove  that  the  Eu- 
nuch was  immersed,  they  prove  also  that 
Philip  was  immersed.  Now  if  he  or  any  body 
else  supposes   that  Baptists   claim   these  ex- 


116  EXAMINATION    OP 

pressions  as  describing  the  baptism,  I  beg 
leave  to  inform  them  better.  We  claim  no 
such  thing.  First  they  came  to  a  certain 
water;  then  they  both  loent  down  into  the 
water;  then  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch;  then 
they  came  up  out  of  the  water.  And  we  say 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  they  should 
both  go  down  into  the  water,  for  the  purpose 
of  sprinkling,  which  might  have  been  done 
better  on  the  bank,  or  even  without  alighting 
from  the  chariot.  Dr.  Doddridge,  with  his 
usual  candor  and  good  sense,  expresses  him- 
self on  this  verse  as  we  should  expect  a  can- 
did Pedo-baptist  would.  He  says,  "Consid- 
ering how  frequently  bathing  was  used  in  those 
hot  countries,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that 
baptism  was  generally  administered  by  immer- 
sion, though  I  see  no  proof  that  it  was  essen- 
tial to  the  institution.  It  would  be  very  un- 
natural to  suppose  that  they  went  down  to  the 
water,  merely  that  Philip  might  take  up  a 
little  water  in  his  hand  to  pour  on  the  Eunuch. 
A  person  of  his  dignity  had,  no  doubt,  many 
vessels  in  his  baggage,  on  such  a  journey 
through  so  desert  a  country,  a  precaution  ab- 
solutely necessary  for  travellers  in  those  parts, 
and  never  omitted  by  them." 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  117 

The  account  of  this  baptism,  by  the  inspired 
historian,  is  so  plain  and  circumstantial,  that 
all  comment  seems  superfluous.  Let  the  read- 
er mark  that  the  Eunuch  says  nothing  about 
being  baptized  till  they  come  to  water.  But 
if  sprinkling  had  been  in  his  mind,  we  may 
be  certain,  from  our  knowledge  of  the  customs 
of  travellers  in  the  east,  in  all  ages,  (as  re- 
ferred to  by  Dr.  Doddridge,)  that  he  had  water 
enough  in  his  chariot  for  that.  When  they 
come  to  the  water,  the  Eunuch  does  not  send 
one  of  his  retinue  to  bring  water  to  them;  he 
commands  them  to  stop  the  chariot,  and  they 
both  alight.  They  not  only  go  to  the  water, 
where  they  might  have  stopped  if  sprinkling 
was  all;  they  go  down  iiito  the  water.  Again, 
the  historian  is  careful  to  tell  us  twice  over 
that  they  both  went  down.  If  he  only  said 
that  one  of  them  went,  there  might  be  some 
plausibility  in  the  assertion  that  the  Eunuch 
was  not  immersed;  why  should  both  go  down 
into  the  water,  for  a  sprinkling.''  Then  after 
the  baptism  they  came  up  out  of  the  water; 
could  they  come  out  of  the  water,  if  they  had 
not  been  in  it.^  Now  whether  the  water  was 
"  little  "  or  much,  there  was  enough  for  both 
to  go  down  into  it,   and  for  the  Eunuch  to  be 


118  EXAMINATION    OF 

baptized  in  it.  And  what  ought  any  man's 
fancies  and  conjectures  to  weigh  against  an 
inspired  narrative  so  explicit? 

But  the  prepositions  eis  and  ek  only  mean  to 
and/rom.  What  must  the  unlettered  reader 
think  of  the  Bible,  if  words  can  be  made  to 
mean  just  what  the  exigencies  of  every  man's 
religious  system  demand?  I  would  say,  in  all 
kindness  to  my  Pedo-baptist  brethren  in  the 
ministry,  use  your  knife  a  little  more  sparingly 
when  you  are  dealing  with  God's  word.  There 
are  some  other  doctrines  besides  baptism  that 
we  wish  to  defend  and  enforce.  When  Dr. 
Peters  wishes  to  preach  on  future  punishment, 
he  will  need  to  prove  that  the  wicked  will  be 
cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  shall  never  be 
quenched;  into  everlasting  fire — into  ever- 
lasting punishment,  and  not  merely  to  hell,  to 
everlasting  fire.  But  he  cannot.  In  attempt- 
ing to  destroy  our  weapons,  he  has  destroyed 
his  own.  He  has  wrested  into  out  of  this  pas- 
sage; but  is  that  all?  No;  he  has  wrested  it 
out  of  all  the  passages  of  the  class  that  I  have 
mentioned.  Their  construction  is  precisely 
the  same.  Every  philological  reason  for  say- 
ing [that  eis  means  into  in  these  passages, 
proves  that  it  means  into  in  the  passage  under 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  119 

consideration.  Wresting  God's  word  is  serious 
business,  whether  it  is  done  by  good  men  or 
by  bad  men. 

But  does  not  eis  mean  to,  sometimes?  Yes, 
sometimes;  but  rarely  in  comparison  with  the 
times  when  it  means  into.  And  the  construc- 
tion will  always  determine.  And  I  speak  ivhat 
I  know,  when  I  say,  if  the  construction  does 
not  prove  that  it  means  into  here,  it  cannot  be 
proved  in  any  case  in  the  New  Testament. 
But  though  eis  may  mean  to  in  some  cases, 
ek  never  means  less  than  out  of.  Dr.  P.  has 
given  no  instance  of  its  meaning  from,  and  I 
hesitate  not  to  say  he  cannot.* 

In  all  my  reading  of  controversial  writings, 
I  do  not  remember  to  have  met  with  a  more 
palpable  example  of  a  writer's  throwing  dust 
to  blind  the  eyes  of  his  reader,  and  keep  him 
from  discerning  the  real  point  at  issue,  than 
the  Doctor's  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
prepositions  here  employed.  He  cites  from 
examples  of  the  use  of  eis  where  it  may  be 
rendered  to.  But  how  does  he  prove  that  ek 
means/rom?     He   quotes  Dr.  Carson    as  ad- 

^  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  Doddridge,  while  he  trans- 
lates eis  in  this  verso  to,  renders  ek,  otit  of.  A  clear  confir- 
mation of  what  I  have  said  above. 


120  EXAMINATION    OF 

mitting  that  "  the  proper  translation  of  apo  is 
from.^'  Does  proving  that  apo  means /rom, 
prove  that  eA:  means /rom?  Why  did  he,  when 
he  professed  to  be  discussing  the  meaning  of 
ek  in  Acts  8:  39,  take  a  sudden  turn  to  Mat. 
3:16,  where  not  ek  but  apo  is  used,  if  not  to 
blind  the  eyes  of  the  "  plain  men  for  whom  his 
work  was  designed  "  ?  Let  me  repeat  to 
these  "  plain  men,"  that  he  has  not  produced 
a  single  example  in  which  ek  mea.ns  from,  and 
he  cannot.  Though  eis  may,  in  comparatively 
few  instances,  mean  to,  (exceptions  to  its  usual 
meaning,  which  its  construction  invariably 
shows,)  ek  never  means  less  than  out  of.  And 
the  use  of  ek  here  is  a  plain  proof  that  eis,  in 
this  place,  means  into.  They  could  not  have 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  without  first  having 
gone  ijito  it. 

As  further  proof  that  in  the  38th  verse  eis 
means  into  instead  of  to,  I  will  observe  that  in 
the  36th  verse,  "  As  they  went  on  their  way, 
they  came  unto  a  certain  water," — where  the 
sense  obviously  requires  unto,  or  to,  the  prepo- 
sition is  not  eis,  but  epi.  This  is  the  prepo- 
sition which  properly  means  to.  When  the 
historian  clearly  and  obviously  meant  to,  he 
used  epi.     If  he  intended  to  tell  us  that  Philip 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  l21 

and  the  Eunuch  only  went  to  the  water,  (in 
the  38th  verse,)  why  did  he  not  use  epi  as  he 
did  in  the  36th  verse?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  he  intended  to  have  us  understand  him  as 
meaning  only  to  when  he  used  eis  in  the  38th 
verse,  why  did  he  not  use  eis  in  the  36th  verse, 
where  the  sense  obviously  requires  tol  Perhaps 
as  Dr.  Peters  is  a  "learned  man,"  he  can 
answer  these  questions;  I  cannot,  on  any  other 
supposition  than  that  one  of  these  prepositions 
means  to,  and  the  other  into.  According  to 
him,  Greek  prepositions  are  a  perfect  chaos, 
and  mean  any  thing  or  nothing,  just  as  the 
translator  chooses.  I  challenge  any  man  to 
produce  from  the  whole  range  of  Greek  litera- 
ture, a  passage  where  prepositions  are  used 
with  more  perfect  accuracy  of  meaning,  than 
they  are  in  this  passage. 

Dr.  P.,  referring  to  the  26th  verse,  says  the 
place  where  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  were  trav- 
elling was  a  desert,  where  there  could  have 
been  no  stream,  in  which  the  Eunuch  might 
have  been  immersed.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
me  to  prove  that  there  was  a  stream,  in  order 
to  prove  that  he  was  immersed.  If  the  history 
does  not  inform  us  that  he  was  immersed,  no 
language  can  do  it.  But  I  will  inform  the 
II 


122  EXAMINATION    OF 

reader,  that  such  biblical  scholars  as  Home, 
Hug,  and  Robinson,  one  an  Englishman, 
another  a  German,  and  the  third  an  American, 
all  preeminent  in  this  department,  and  all 
Pedo-baptists,  refer  the  word  desert,  in  the 
26th  verse,  not  to  the  country  through  which 
they  were  travelling,  but  to  the  city  of  Gaza. 
I  quote  the  following  from  Home's  Intro- 
duction, Vol.  H,  p.  425,  and  will  also  refer 
the  reader  to  Robinson's  Lexicon,  under  the 
word  Gaza.  "The  city  of  Gaza  is  mentioned 
in  Acts  8:  26,  with  the  parenthetical  remark, 
that  it  (or  the  same)  is  desert,  which  has  greatly 
exercised  the  ingenuity  of  commentators.  A 
passage,  however,  in  Josephus,  which  has  es- 
caped the  researches  of  most  of  the  learned 
men,  clears  up  the  difficulty,  and  shows  the 
minute  fidelity  of  the  sacred  historian.  A 
short  time  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  in 
consequence  of  a  massacre  of  the  Jews  at 
Cesarea,  the  whole  nation  became  greatly  en- 
raged, and  in  revenge,  laid  waste  many  villa- 
ges and  cities;  and  among  these  were  Gaza, 
which  they  utterly  demolished.  Gaza  was 
therefore  actually  a  desert  at  the  time  St.  Luke 
wrote."  The  reader  will  see  that  the  words 
*'  which  is  desert  "  are  a  parenthesis,  referring 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  123 

not  to  the  loay,  but  to  the  state  of  the  city  at 
the  time  Luke  wrote. 

There  is  another  fact  that  I  will  inform  the 
reader  of  Gaza  was  about  sixty  miles  from 
Jerusalem.  Prof  Robinson  lays  down  on 
his  map  four  considerable  streams  running 
into  the  Mediterranean  sea  between  those  two 
cities.  The  route  which  Messrs.  Robinson 
and  Smith  travelled  between  these  cities, 
crosses  these  streams  and  their  branches,  not 
less  than  fifteen  times.  60-^15=4,  giving  us 
a  stream  large  enough  to  be  laid  down  on  a 
map  of  the  country,  to  be  crossed  on  an  aver- 
age of  once  in  four  miles  through  the  whole 
distance.  The  Roman  road,  which  probably 
the  Eunuch  followed,  crosses  these  streams 
ten  times,  an  average  of  once  in  six  miles.  A 
desert  country  and  no  water! 

To  make  out  that  this  was  a  desert  country, 
destitute  of  water,  the  Doctor  refers  us  to  the 
sojourn  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  there.  The 
reader,  if  he  will  consult  Gen.  26,  will  find 
that  Isaac  went  into  this  country  to  escape  a 
famine  that  was  raging  elsewhere.  Would  he 
have  gone  into  a  desert  with  his  flocks  and 
herds  to  escape  a  famine?  Besides,  we  are 
told  that  Isaac   sowed   in  that  land,   and  re- 


124  EXAMINATION    OF 

ceived  the  same  year  an  hundred  fold;  that  he 
waxed  great — became  very  great,  and  had 
possession  of  flocks  and  possession  of  herds, 
and  a  great  store  of  servants;  and  the  Philis- 
tines envied  him.  (Gen.  26:  12— 14.)  That 
must  have  been  a  desert  country  indeed!  He 
says,  "It  was  not  far  from  this  place  that 
Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch;  and  the  water 
was  probably  one  of  those  '  springs  in  the 
desert'  of  which  we  read,  (Gen.  26:  19.)" 
"Of  which  ive  read  "  !  Perhaps  Dr.  Peters 
reads  of  a  desert  in  that  verse;  but  we  read 
of  no  such  thing.  In  the  English  Bible  we 
read,  "And  Isaac's  servants  digged  in  the 
VALLEY,  and  found  there  a  well  of  springing 
water."  If  we  turn  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  we 
find  the  word  for  valley,  nachal,  which  is  thus 
defined  in  Robinson's  Gesenius:  "A  valley 
icith  a  brook  or  torrent,  a  low  place  with  water, 
Gen.  26:  19."  Dr.  Peters  is  a  "learned" 
man  writing  for  "plain  men.  "Industrious 
ignorance  "  must  feel  vastly  indebted  to  him. 
One  other  fact  I  will  remind  the  reader  of. 
Philip,  after  the  baptism,  was  first  found  at 
Azotus.  We  have  then  a  right  to  believe  that 
the  baptism  took  place  nearer  that  city  than 
any  other.     Dr.   Robinson  lays  down  on  his 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  125 

map  two  considerable  rivers  a  few  miles  from 
that  city,  one  to  the  north  and  the  other  to 
the  south,  and  the  Roman  road  crosses  both 
of  them.  "  The  presumption,  then,  that  there 
was  a  river  in  the  desert,  in  which  the  Eunuch 
might  have  been  immersed,  is  all  a  fancy  "  ! 
(p.  97.) 

Dr.  Peters  tells  us  on  p.  95,  what  it  was 
which  led  the  Eunuch  to  think  of  being 
*'  sprinkled  "  at  that  time.  It  was  because  he 
had  just  read  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  42:  15,  "  So 
shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  which  Philip 
had  doubtless  explained  to  him  as  meaning 
baptism!  Is  it  not  enough  for  men  to  pervert 
God's  word  themselves,  without  conjecturing 
that  inspired  men  perverted  it.'*  In  the  32d 
verse  it  is  said,  "  The  place  of  the  scripture 
which  he  read  was  this;"  and  then  follows  the 
quotation  of  Isa.  53:  7,  8,  following,  says 
Bloomfield,  "the  Septuagint  version  exactly; 
the  verbal  discrepancies  which  occur,  not 
being  found  in  the  Alexandrian  and  other  good 
MSS.  of  the  Septuagint."  The  Eunuch  then 
was  reading  from  the  Septuagint.  Now  in 
this  version  the  word  sprinkle  does  not  occur 
in  Isa.  52:  15.  It  is  "  iSo  shall  many  nations 
wonder,  or  admire  because  of  him. ^^  So  even 
11* 


126  EXAMINATION    OF    ^ 

this   absurd  conjecture   is  utterly   destitute  of 
foundation. 

Paul's  baptism. 

Dr.  P.  tells  us  that  Paul  was  baptized  out 
of  a  "  water  pot  of  stone,"  which  stood  in  the 
house  where  he  had  been  three  days  fasting! 
If  Paul  himself  had  said  that  he  was  immersed, 
would  Dr.  Peters  believe  it?  Paul  did  say  he 
was  immersed.  "Know  ye  not  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death  .^  Therefore  we  are 
BURIED  with  him  by  baptism.  ^^  Buried  in  a 
water  pot  of  stone! 

baptism    of    CORNELIUS    AND    HIS    FRIENDS. 

Dr.  Peters  thinks  Peter's  question,  "  Can 
any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized?"  means  "Will  some  one  be  kind 
enough  to  bring  in  some  water,  that  these  may 
be  baptized "  !  If  this  were  the  meaning, 
should  we  not  expect  the  remainder  of  the 
verse  would  read,  "And  he  commanded  a 
servant  to  bring  in  a  water  pot  of  stone  "  ? 
Peter's  question  plainly  means.  Can  any  man 
forbid    baptism    to   these     persons?      This   is 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  127 

shown  by  what  follows,  "And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized.'^ 

BAPTISM    OF    LYDIA    AND    HER    HOUSEHOLD. 

Dr.  p.  thinks  it  improbable  that  Lydia  and 
her  household  were  immersed,  because  we  are 
not  told  whether  she  changed  her  raiment  or 
not.  As  I  do  not  wish  to  be  wise  above  what 
is  written,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  On 
the  express  declaration  of  the  record,  I  affirm 
they  were  immersed.  The  word  baptize  we 
have  seen  always  means  immerse;  is  it  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  it  means  any  thing 
else  here?  Besides,  they  were  not  by  a  "water 
pot  of  stone,"  but  by  a  river  side;  a  good 
place  for  immersion. 

BAPTISM    or    THE    JAILER    AND  HIS    HOUSEHOLD. 

Dr.  p.  says  the  jailer  and  his  household 
were  baptized  in  the  prison:  the  historian  says 
the  contrary.  Verse  30  tells  us  the  jailer 
*' brought  them  out; '^  out  of  what.^  They 
were  in  the  prison;  he  must  then  have  brought 
them  out  of  prison.  Where  did  he  bring 
them  to.''  Plainly,  into  his  house:  verse  32; 
**They  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord, 


128  EXAMINATION    OF 

and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. '^  But  he 
says  the  house  was  in  the  prison.  That  is 
easier  said  than  proved.  But  suppose  it  was; 
they  were  baptized  neither  in  the  prison  nor 
the  house.  After  the  sermon,  the  jailer 
washed  their  stripes;  and  after  this  was  done, 
the  jailer  and  his  household  were  baptized; 
and  after  the  baptism,  (verse  34,)  ''  he  brought 
them  into  his  house.''  They  went  somewhere 
out  of  both  prison  and  house,  to  administer 
the  baptism.  When  a  Pedo-baptist  minister 
wishes  to  baptize  a  household  at  home,  does 
he  take  the  family  out  of  the  house .''  When 
a  Baptist  minister  wishes  to  baptize  a  house- 
hold, what  does  he  do.^  Just  what  the  apos- 
tles did  here;  he  goes  out  of  the  house  to 
doit. 

But  he  thinks  that  because  Paul  and  Silas 
would  not  be  thrust  out  of  prison  privily,  they 
would  not  go  out  privily  m  the  night  to  baptize 
the  jailer  and  his  family.  Undoubtedly  they 
would  not.  Paul  and  Silas  would  not  have 
been  guilty  of  any  thing  that  had  the  least 
appearance  of  a  stealthy  disobedience  to  law 
or  regular  authority,  though  that  authority  had 
treated  them  unjustly.  And  had  their  preach- 
ing  or  baptizing  in  the  night  been  an  act  of 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  129 

this  character,  they  would  not  have  done  it. 
They  did  not  come  out  privily;  but  the  jailer 
who  was  responsible  for  their  safe  keeping 
brought  them  out.  They  were  still  under  his 
keeping,  and  he  felt  entirely  safe  that  they 
would  do  nothing  to  render  him  liable  to  dis- 
grace or  punishment. 

BAPTISM    IN    THE    EARLY    CHURCH. 

That  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
church,  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding 
the  apostles,  is  as  well  substantiated  as  any 
other  fact  in  Ecclesiastical  history.  I  present 
the  following  as  specimens  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  early  Christian  writers  speak 
of  it. 

Hermas,  who  was  cotemporary  with  Paul 
and  whose  name  is  mentioned  by  him  in  Rom. 
16:  14,  says:  "The  seal  of  the  sons  of  God 
is  water,  into  which  men  descend  who  are  bound 
to  death,  but  ascend  out  of  it  sealed  to  life." 
Augusti,  after  quoting  the  passage  at  length, 
says  it  "contains  distinct  evidence  of  the  cus- 
tom of  immersion." 

Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  within  fifty  years 
of  the  time  of  the  apostles,  says:  "Those 
who  believe  are  led  to  some  place  where  there  is 


130  EXAMINATION    OF 

water,  and  there  bathe  in  the  water.^^  In  another 
place  he  says:  "We  represent  our  Lord's 
sufferings  and  resurrection,  by  baptism  in  a 
pool.'^  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  lived  a 
little  later,  says:  "You  were  led  to  a  bath, 
as  Christ  was  conveyed  to  the  sepulchre,  and 
were  thrice  immersed,  to  signify  Christ's  three 
days'  burial." 

"Tertullian,"  says  President  Sears,  "makes 
no  allusion  to  sprinkling,  but  expresses  im- 
mersion by  every  Latin  word  that  could  be 
used."  As  examples:  "We  are  immei^sed  in 
water. ^^  "  We  are  led  doivn  into  the  water 
and  dipped.^'  "Peter  immersed  in  the  Tiber." 
"It  is  indifferent  whether  one  is  baptized  in 
the  sea,  or  in  a  pool,  in  a  river  or  fountain,  in 
a  lake  or  channel.'' 

Dr.  Peters  admits  (p.  114,)  that  "there  is 
evidence  sufficient  to  show  that,  as  early  as 
the  second  century,  immersion  was  generally 
practised;"  but  he  adds,  "it  was  not  then 
claimed  by  any,  as  the  exclusive  mode."  But 
Mosheim  and  Neander,  the  two  standard  his- 
torians of  the  church,  both  affirm  that  in  the 
two  first  centuries,  baptism  was  uniformly  ad- 
ministered by  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
in  water.     He  says,   (p.    115,)  that   "  Origen 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  131 

and  Tertullian,  who  both  lived  within  one 
hundred  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  testify  to 
the  practice  and  validity  of  baptisnn  by  affusion 
or  sprinkling,  and  recommended  it  in  cases, 
where,  on  account  of  sickness  or  other  causes, 
immersion  was  inconvenient  or  dangerous. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  and  Ireneus."  He  refers  to  Prof.  Stuart 
as  his  authority  for  these  statements.  Now  I 
am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  call  in  question  Dr. 
Peters'  accuracy  on  a  matter  of  fact,  and  that 
so  simple  as  the  reading  of  Prof.  Stuart's 
essay,  written  in  plain  English.  But  I  feel 
bound  to  say,  that  after  a  careful  reading  of 
that  article,  I  find  nothing  of  the  kind  said  by 
him  in  reference  to  either  Origen,  Tertullian, 
Clement,  or  Ireneus.  Prof.  Stuart  does  not 
inform  us  of  any  intimation  of  sprinkling,  by 
any  Christian  writer  earlier  than  Cyprian,  in 
the  middle  of  the  third  century.  He  says  that 
"Tertullian  is  the  most  ample  witness  of  all 
the  early  writers,"  quotes  numerous  examples 
from  him,  all  of  the  character  I  have  adduced, 
and  adds:  "  I  do  not  see  how  any  doubt  can 
remain,  that  in  Tcrlullian's  time,  the  practice 
of  the  African  church,  to  say  the  least,  must 
have  been  trine  immersion.^' 


132  EXAMINATION    OF 

He  then  adds,  "  Subsequent  ages  make  the 
general  practice  of  the  cliurch  still  plainer,  if 
indeed  this  can  be  done."  Then  follow  quota- 
tions from  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  Augustine, 
Dyonisius,  &.C.  He  then  says,  "  The  passa- 
ges which  refer  to  immersion  are  so  numerous 
in  the  fathers,  that  it  would  take  a  little  volume 
merely  to  recite  them."  Then  he  gives 
another  page  of  quotations,  and  concludes  with 
the  following  emphatic  language:  "But 
enough.  *  It  is,'  says  Augusti.  '  a  thing  made 
out,'  viz.  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
So  indeed  all  the  writers  who  have  thoroughly 
invesstigated  this  subject  conclude.  I  know  of 
no  one  usage  of  ancient  times,  which  seems 
to  be  more  clearly  and  certainly  made  out.  I 
cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  candid 
man,  who  examines  this  subject,  to  deny  this. 

He  adds,  "  That  there  were  cases  of  ex- 
ception allowed  now  and  then,  is  no  doubt 
true.  Persons  in  extreme  sickness  or  danger 
were  allowed  baptism  by  affusion.  Cyprian 
pleads  strongly  and  conclusively  for  this."  He 
quotes  four  other  authorities  on  this  point,  but 
none  earlier  than  Cyjrrian,  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  "But,"  he  concludes,  "all 
such  cases   were    manifcsthj    regarded    as    ex- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  133 

ceptions  to  the  common  usage  of  the  church." 
Summing  up  the  whole  matter,  he  says, — 
"  From  the  earliest  ages  of  which  we  have 
any  account,  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age, 
and  downward  for  several  centuries,  the 
churches  did  generally  practise  baptism  by 
immersion ;  perhaps  by  immersion  of  the  whole 
person;  and  the  only  exceptions  to  this  mode 
which  were  usually  allowed,  were  in  cases  of 
urgent  sickness,  or  other  cases  of  immediate 
and  imminent  danger,  where  immersion  could 
not  be  practised.  Aspersion  and  affusion, 
which  in  particular  cases  had  been  now  and 
then  practised  in  primitive  times,  were  gradu- 
ally introduced.  These  became  at  length 
quite  common,  and  in  the  western  church,  al- 
most universal,  sometime  before  the  Reforma- 
tion." 

"In  what  manner,  then,"  he  adds,  "did 
the  churches  of  Christ,  from  a  very  early 
period,  to  say  the  least,  understand  the  word 
baptizo  in  the  New  Testament .''  Plainly  they 
construed  it  as  meaning  immersion.  They 
sometimes  even  went  so  far  as  to  forbid  any 
other  method  of  administering  the  ordinance, 
cases  of  necessity  and  mercy  only  excepted." 

I  have  been  full  in  these  quotations  from 
12 


134  EXAMINATION    OF 

Prof.  Stuart,  because  they  are  to  the  point, 
and  because  he  is  a  Massachusetts  Congrega- 
tionalist,  whose  reputation  is  world  wide,  for 
varied  and  extensive  scholarship,  and  ardent 
devotion  to  biblical  learning. 

While  I  am  on  quotations,  I  cannot  forbear 
adding  the  following  from  Dr.  Wall,  whom 
Dr.  P.  (p.  171,)  ranks  among  ''our  best  his- 
torians.''  "The  usual  way  of  baptizing  in 
the  early  ages,  was  by  immersion,  or  dipping 
the  person  in  water.  This  is  so  plain  and 
clear,  from  an  infinite  number  of  passages, 
that  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of 
such  Pedo-baptists  as  would  maintain  the  neg- 
ative of  it.  It  is  a  great  want  of  prudence  as 
well  as  of  honesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to  an  ad- 
versary what  is  certainly  true,  and  can  be 
proved  so.  It  creates  a  jealousy  of  all  the 
rest  that  one  says."  In  another  place  he 
says:  "  We  ought  to  disown  and  show  a  dis- 
like of  the  profane  scoffs  which  some  people 
give  to  the  English  Anti-Pedo-baptists,  (Bap- 
tists,) merely  for  their  use  of  dipping.  It  is 
one  thing  to  maintain  that  that  circumstance 
is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  essence  of 
baptism,  and  another  to  go  about  to  represent 
it  as  ridiculotis  or  foolish,  or   as  shameful  and 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  135 

indecent,  when  it  was,  in  all  probability,  the 
way  by  which  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  for 
certain  was  the  most  usual  and  ordinary  way, 
by  which  the  ancient  Christians  did  receive 
their  baptism." 

The  above  extracts  from  Dr.  Wall  require 
no  comment.  The  reflecting  reader  can  pon- 
der upon  them  and  make  his  own  applica- 
tions. 

Dr.  P.  says,  (p.  116,)  "  Our  Baptist  breth- 
ren are  fond  of  claiming  this  history  of  the 
early  practice  of  Christians  as  wholly  in  their 
favor.  But  if  they  take  it  as  authority  in  re- 
spect to  immersion,  they  ought  to  take  the 
other  things  that  I  have  named  along  with  it," 
(i.  e.,  exorcism,  unction,  giving  salt  and  milk 
to  the  candidate,  clothing  him  in  a  snow-white 
robe,  crowning  with  evergreen,  and  baptizing 
the  candidate  in  a  state  of  entire  nudity.) 
Most  certainly  we  ought,  if  we  took  this  his- 
tory as  AUTHORITY.  We  do  not.  THE  BI- 
BLE, nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  the 
Bible  is  our  authority.  Our  question  is. 
What  does  that  word  baptize,  whose  meaning 
contains  the  Saviour's  command,  meanl  We 
find,  from  an  examination  of  that  word,  that 
by   universal   usage   in   all   Greek   literature 


136  EXAMINATION    OF 

both  classical  and  Jewish,  up  to  the  time  when 
that  command  was  given,  it  meant  immerse. 
We  find  the  New  Testament  baptisms  to  have 
been  immersions;  and  here  we  feel  authorized 
to  say,  the  point  is  settled.  We  understand 
the  law  of  baptism  and  apostolical  practice,  to 
require  immersion.  But  as  our  brethren  ve- 
hemently dispute  us,  we  ask  the  early  Chris- 
tians immediately  after  the  apostles,  how  they 
understand  that  law?  and  they  unanimously 
cry  IMMERSION.  But  we  see  those  same 
Christians  immersing  three  times.  We  inquire, 
Do  you  suppose  the  law  requires  that?  No, 
responds  Tertullian;  "in  being  thrice  im- 
mersed, (ter  mergitamur)  we  fulfil  somewhat 
more  (amplius  aliquid  respondentes)  than  the 
Lord  has  decreed  in  the  Gospel."  Then  as 
to  unction,  exorcism,  baptizing  naked,  &c., 
does  the  law  require  these?  No,  they  re- 
spond, tradition  is  our  only  authority  for  these. 
Their  testimony  is  explicit,  that  the  law,  as 
they  understand  it,  requires  simply  immersion. 
So  far,  we  hear  them  with  confidence  and  re- 
spect. When  they  talk  of  "  fulfilling  some- 
what more  "  than  the  law  requires,  on  the  au- 
thority of  tradition,  we  demur. 

But  does  not  Dr.  P.  claim  the  practice  of 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  137 

early  Christians  in  favor  of  sprinkling?  (with 
how  much  reason  I  have  shown.)  Does  not 
he  quote  Cyprian  as  justifying  it?  Why  then 
does  he  not  receive  all  these  practices?  These 
questions  are  pertinent;  for  it  can  be  proved 
that  contemporaneously  with  the  introduction 
of  these  practices,  (viz.  exorcism,  unction, 
8lc.,)  came  the  practice  of  sprinkling  in  ex- 
treme cases;  (and  I  may  add  also  infant  bap- 
tism,) and  nobody  defends  the  validity  of  such 
baptism  before  Cyprian,  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  when  these  other  practices 
were  firmly  established.  Nor  does  Cyprian 
justify  it  except  in  those  extreme  cases;  nor 
yet  does  he  defend  it  either  from  the  laiv  of 
baptism,  or  apostolical  usage,  or  even  tradition. 
He  defends  it  by  such  arguments  as  Dr.  P. 
has  given  a  specimen  of;  arguments  worthy 
of  Bishop  Cyprian  and  his  age,  but  unworthy 
of  Dr.  Peters  and  his  age.  It  is  then  for  Dr. 
P.,  and  those  who  receive  sprinkling,  a  prac- 
tice having  the  same  origin,  and  at  the  same 
time  with  exorcism,  unction,  and  naked  bap- 
tism, and  who  receive  it  on  the  same  argu- 
ments by  which  Cyprian  defended  it,  who  at 
the  same  time  defended  all  these  other  prac- 
tices, to  adopt  and  practice  these  ceremonies; 
12* 


138  EXAMINATION    OF 

not  for  us,  who  abjure  and  renounce  the  whole 
together,  and  for  the  same  reason — not  one 
OF  THEM  HAS  A  THUS  SAITH  THE  LORD 
for  it. 

jewish  proselyte  baptism. 

The  careful  reader  of  Dr.  Peters'  book 
cannot  fail  to  see  that  he  makes  great  depend- 
ence on  the  supposed  existence  among  the 
Jews,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  of  a  cus- 
tom of  baptizing  the  proselytes  which  they 
made  from  among  the  Gentiles.  That  sup- 
posed fact  is  the  main  pillar  of  his  argument 
for  infant  baptism  in  Part  H,  although  he 
studiously  keeps  it  out  of  sight  in  Part  I.  His 
course  of  argument  is  this:  When  our  Saviour 
gave  the  apostles  the  command  to  make  dis- 
ciples among  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  they 
would  interpret  the  command  in  conformity  to 
the  method  of  making  disciples  among  the 
Jews,  with  which  they  were  familiar;  and  that 
method  was,  as  he  alleges,  when  the  head  of 
a  household  became  a  disciple,  (to  Judaism,) 
to  baptize  him,  and  his  household  together; 
and  accordingly  the  apostles  would  understand 
the  commission  to  be,  when  they  made  a  dis- 
ciple to  Christ  of  the  head   of  a  household, 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  139 

that  he  and  his  household  were  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  reader  cannot  fail  to  notice  that 
this  supposed  fact  is  interwoven  with  the 
whole  of  Dr.  P. 's  reasoning  on  infant  baptism; 
and  if  it  is  not  a  fact,  there  is  but  little  left  to 
his  argument  in  Part  II.  Now  for  sake  of  the 
argument,  I  will  for  the  present  admit  that  the 
fact  did  exist  as  he  supposes;  and  we  will  in- 
quire a  little  more  definitely  what  that  would 
teach  us  in  regard  to  Christian  baptism. 

Prof.  Stuart,  after  an  elaborate  examination 
of  the  whole  subject  of  Proselyte  baptism, 
extending  through  seventeen  octavo  pages, 
concludes  his  examination  as  follows:  "But 
what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  question, 
What  was  the  ancient  mode  of  Christian  bap- 
tism? Much;  for  i^  is  on  all  hands  conceded j 
that,  so  far  as  the  testimony  of  the  Rabbins 
can  decide  such  a  point,  the  baptism  of 
proselytes  among  the  Jews  was  by  immersion.* 
To  cite  authorities  to  this  purpose  is  needless. 
They  may  be  seen  in  Lightfoot,  in  Danz,  and 
elsewhere.  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  no  little 
interest,  so  far  as  our  question  is  concerned, 
to   inquire   whether  Christian  baptism   had  its 

*  Dr.  Peters  tacitly  admits  thig  on  p.  31,  tiiough  he  is  care- 
ful not  to  say  it. 


140  EXAMINATION    OF 

origin  from  the  proselyte  baptism  among  the 
Jews." 

If,  then,  the  apostles  interpreted  the  com- 
mission to  baptize  from  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism,  the  first  thing  that  follows  is,  that 
they  understood  it  to  be  immersion.  It  "is  on 
all  hands  conceded,^'  says  Prof  Stuart. 

So  much  it  proves  in  regard  to  the  "mode 
of  baptism,"  and  Dr.  P.  cannot  escape  it.  He 
has  planted  himself  on  Jewish  proselyte  bap- 
tism, and  that  is  precisely  what  it  does  for 
him. 

Now,  secondly,  what  does  it  prove  in  regard 
to  the  subjects  of  baptism?  Prof  Stuart  says, 
"  when  a  proselyte  was  once  baptized  and  re- 
ceived, this  rite  was  at  an  end.  His  children 
born  after  his  reception,  were  no  more  re- 
quired to  be  baptized,  than  the  children  of 
native  Jews."  Pres.  Sears  states  the  same 
fact.  If,  then,  the  apostles  understood  the 
commission  according  to  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism,  when  a  parent  was  converted  and 
baptized  all  the  children  would  be  baptized 
with  him;  but  if  he  had  children  born  after 
his  baptism,  they  would  not  be  baptized.  If, 
for  example,  a  parent  at  his  conversion  and 
baptism  had  one  child,  that  one  child  would  be 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  J41 

baptized;  if  he  afterwards  were  to  have  ten 
more,  the  ten  would  not  be  entitled  to  baptism. 
Is  that  the  Pedo-baptist  rite  of  infant  baptism  ? 

So  much  it  proves  in  regard  to  the  subjects 
of  baptism,  and  Dr.  P.  cannot  escape  it.  He 
has  planted  himself  on  Jewish  proselyte  bap- 
tism, and  this  is  what  it  does  for  him.  What 
less  can  be  expected,  when  men  forsake  the 
plain  directions  of  God's  word,  and  give  them- 
selves up  to  fancies,  conjectures,  and  empty 
traditions.'' 

But  admit  that  all  that  Dr.  Peters  supposes  in 
regard  to  proselyte  baptism  is  true — admit 
that  it  did  exist  as  a  regular  Jewish  usage  be- 
fore, and  at  the  time  the  commission  to  bap- 
tize was  given — admit  also  that  it  was  in  all 
respects  analogous  to  the  Pedo-baptist  rite  of 
infant  baptism — is  Dr.  Peters'  argument  even 
plausible?  Dr.  Peters  admits  that  Jewish 
proselyte  baptism  was  of  men;  (p.  51,)  he 
also  admits  that  John's  baptism  was  from  hea- 
ven, (p,  55.)  He  also  admits  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  solely  adult  baptism,  (p.  137.)  Now 
if  the  apostles  derived  their  conception  of  the 
baptism  required  in  the  commission  from  any 
baptism  that  had  previously  existed,  would  they 
not  have  been  likely  to  have  derived  it  from 


142  EXAMINATION    OF 

John's  baptism,  with  which  they  were  familiar, 
which  ihey  had  themselves  received,  and  which 
they  knew  was  from  heaven,  rather  than  from 
a  Rabbinical  custom,  which  they  knew  was 
from  men,  as  utterly  destitute  of  Divine  au- 
thority as  the  Pharisaical  traditions  denounced 
by  Christ?  It  is  absurd  enough  to  suppose 
that  the  Christian  ordinance  of  baptism  had 
its  foundation  on  the  legal  institutions,  that  in 
so  many  places  in  the  New  Testament  are  de- 
clared to  be  superseded  by  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation; to  found  it  on  a  mere  Rabbinical 
custom,  is  the  very  climacteric  of  absurdity. 
But  it  cannot  be  proved  that  any  such  in- 
stitution as  a  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  had  any 
existence  in  the  time  of  Christ.  Prof  Stuart 
examines  the  whole  subject,  through  seven- 
teen octavo  pages,  and  arrives  at  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  "was  practised,  at,  or  not  long 
after  the  time  when  the  second  temple  was  de- 
stroyed.'' He  examines  all  the  authorities  Dr. 
P.  refers  to,  and  shows  that  they  entirely  fail 
of  proving  it.  President  Sears  (in  Chr.  Rev. 
vol.  3,  p.  203,)  says,  "it  is  settled  by  the 
great  critics  of  Germany,  that  the  existence 
of  proselyte  baptism  as  a  Jewish  institution  in 
the  time   of  Christ   cannot  be  proved."     He 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  143 

quotes  Dr.  Neander  as  saying  in  his  lectures, 
"  since  the  elaborate  work  of  Schneckenbur- 
ger  has  appeared,  no  one  will  pretend  that  he 
can  prove  the  existence  of  a  proselyte  baptism 
in  the  time  of  Christ." 

Dr.  Peters  can  have  his  election  between 
the  two  horns  of  this  dilemma.  He  can  main- 
tain his  stand  on  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism, 
in  which  case  he  loses  the  whole  of  his  Part 
I,  and  still  gets  no  infant  baptism  that  will 
justify  the  practice  of  Pedo-baptist  churches. 
Or  he  can  give  it  up,  in  which  case  he  loses  all 
of  Part  II,  that  is  of  any  value  to  his  argu- 
ment. 

Prof.  Stuart  (after  Owen,  Carpzov,  and 
others,)  thinks  it  not  improbable  that  the 
Rabbins  introduced  proselyte  baptism  in  imi- 
tation of  the  baptism  of  John.  Since  it  is  on 
all  hands  admitted  that  the  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  was  immersion,  if  it  is  true  that  it 
was  introduced  in  imitation  of  John's  baptism, 
here  is  an  irrefragible  argument  that  John's 
baptism  was  immersion. 

Again,  since  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism 
was  immersion,  if,  as  Prof.  Stuart  thinks,  it 
was  introduced  about  the  time  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  second   temple,  which  was  during 


144  EXAMINATION    OF 

the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  it  will  follow  that 
the  Jews  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  under- 
stood the  word  baptizo  to  mean  immerse.  Is 
it  not  a  just  conclusion  from  this,  that  the 
apostles  understood  the  word  to  mean  im- 
merse? Would  they,  being  Jews,  have  been 
likely  to  use  the  word  in  a  different  sense 
from  its  current  use  among  Jews  in  their  time? 
And  if  this  custom  was  in  existence,  in  the 
time  of  Christ's  ministry,  as  Dr.  P.  supposes, 
here  would  be  an  absolute  demonstration  that 
when  the  commission  to  baptize  was  given, 
that  word  was  understood  by  the  Jews  to  mean 
uniformly  immerse. 

Again,  Dr.  P.  carries  the  idea  through  his 
whole  first  part,  (though  he  nowhere  proves 
it,)  that  the  apostles  took  their  notion  of  the 
outward  form  of  the  Christian  ordinance  of 
baptism,  from  the  sprinklings  of  the  Jewish 
law.  But  here  we  see  Jewish  Rabbins  cotem- 
porary  with  the  apostles,  familiar  with  all  those 
sprinklings,  and  constantly  using  them,  who 
yet  when  they  introduce  baptism,  which  they 
designate  by  the  same  word  which  the  apos- 
tles employed  to  designate  their  ordinance, 
always  administer  it  by  immersion.  Now  if 
it   is    probable    that   the    apostles    would    use 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  145 

sprinkling  for  baptism,  because  they  were 
familiar  with  Jewish  sprinklings,  it  is  vastly 
more  probable  that  Jewish  Rabbins  would. 
And  if  the  Jewish  Rabbins  did  not,  but  used 
immersion,  we  may  set  it  down  as  certain  that 
the  apostles  would  use  immersion. 

Again,  Dr.  P.  maintains  that  Christian  bap- 
tism is  founded  on  the  Jewish  notion  of  purifi- 
cation; and  because  some  of  their  purifications 
were  effected  by  sprinkling,  therefore  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  sprinkling.  But  it  is  proved 
by  both  Prof  Stuart  and  Pres.  Sears,  that 
the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  was  designed  as 
a  purification.  Still  it  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion. Can  we  have  a  clearer  proof  that 
immersion  met  the  Jewish  conception  of  puri- 
fication in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles, 
more  nearly  than  sprinkling?  and  that  if  their 
conceptions  of  Christian  baptism  were  founded 
on  Jewish  purifications,  they  would  have  been 
at  once  led  to  the  practice  of  immersion.'*  So 
that,  if  any  argument  in  relation  to  Christian 
baptism  can  be  founded  on  Jewish  purifica- 
tions, it  would  be  that  Christian  baptism  is  im- 
mersion. 

And  lastly;  if  Jewish  proselyte  baptism 
were  introduced  about  the  time  of  the  destruc- 
13 


146  EXAMINATION    OF 

tion  of  Jerusalem,  it  was  introduced  at  the 
time  when  the  New  Testament  was  writing. 
It  was  uniformly  immersion.  Hence  the  Jews 
understood  the  word  baptism  to  mean  immer- 
sion. Just  about  this  time,  then,  Mark,  Luke 
and  Paul  were  writing  those  texts,  Mark  7: 
4,  Luke  11:  33,  Heb.  9:  10,  of  which  Dr. 
Peters  makes  so  much  in  Sections  3  and  5 
of  Part  L  Can  stronger  proof  be  given  that 
the  writers  and  readers  of  those  texts  under- 
stood those  words  to  mean  immei^se  and  im- 
mersion? And  if  proselyte  baptism  had  so 
early  an  origin  as  Dr.  P.  supposes,  the  proof 
is  still  stronger.  Demonstration  itself  could 
not  be  stronger. 

I  commend  this  section  to  the  careful 
attention  of  my  Pedo-baptist  friends. 

ALLEGED    IMPRACTICABILITY    OF    IMMERSION. 

Dr.  p.  tells  us  (on  p.  126,)  that  immersion 
is  not  practicable  in  all  climates.  He  specifies, 
under  this  head,  cold  climates,  and  perhaps  he 
may  also  refer  to  desert  countries,  as  Arabia, 
where,  it  is  frequently  urged,  immersion  is  im- 
practicable, for  want  of  water.  To  the  ob- 
jection of  cold  climates,  it  is  sufficient  to  say 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  147 

that  immersion  is  uniformly  practised  by  the 
Oriental  church,  through  every  parallel  of 
latitude,  from  the  Frozen  Ocean  almost  to 
the  Equator.  And  what  is  every  day  done, 
may  doubtless  be  considered  jjracticable.  And 
as  to  the  deserts  of  Arabia,  those  who  urge 
this  objection  doubtless  forget  that  the  Arab's 
camel  frequently  drinks  at  one  time  almost  as 
much  water  as  would  suffice  to  plunge  his 
master  in. 

He  says,  "  If  immersion  were  the  only  bap- 
tism, then  God  would  require  of  all  believers 
what  some  believers  are  unable  to  perform. 
Persons  in  delicate  health,  or  converted  in 
sickness  and  near  to  death,  could  not,  on  that 
supposition,  profess  Christ  before  men  in  the 
only  appointed  way."  He  thus  lays  down 
the  principle  that  God  would  not  require  of 
all  believers,  what  any  believer  in  some  given 
circumstances  might  be  unable  to  perform. 
Now  I  suppose  Dr  P.  will  allow  that  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Lord's  supper  by  believers  is 
required  by  a  law  as  imperative  as  that  of 
baptism.  And  I  presume  he  will  allow  that, 
so  far  as  relates  to  the  outward  form  of  that 
ordinance,  the  eating  of  bread  and  the  drink- 
ing of  wine   by  the  communicant  is  essential 


148  EXAMINATION    OF 

to  its  observance.  Christ  requires  this  of  all 
believers.  But  is  it  not  obvious  that  cases 
may  occur  in  which  this  is  impracticable? 
May  not  persons  be  afflicted  with  particular 
forms  of  disease,  in  which  the  swallowing-  of 
any  substance  whatever,  whether  solid  or 
liquid,  is  utterly  impossible?  Dr.  P.  has  put 
the  case  of  a  certain  woman  who  could  not 
be  immersed,  and  as  she  believed  in  no  other 
baptism,  she  could  not  be  baptized.  I  will 
put  the  case  of  another  woman,  who  was  in 
circumstances  precisely  similar  in  relation  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper.  In  1837, 
the  wife  of  the  well  known  Rev.  John  Leland, 
of  Cheshire,  died.  The  disease  of  which  she 
died  was  a  difficulty  in  her  throat,  which  for 
some  months  previous  to  her  death  prevented 
her  swallowing  any  thing  but  liquids.  At 
length  it  became  impossible  for  her  to  do  this, 
and  she  literally  starved  to  death.  She  was  a 
woman  eminent  for  piety,  and  as  she  was  re- 
ligiously attached  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
it  may  be  presumed  that  she  was  equally  so  to 
that  of  the  supper.  But  her  observance  of  it 
was  utterly  impracticable.  For  months  she 
could  not  obey  that  command.  "And  thus, 
for  a  long  and  dark  period,  she  walked  alone, 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  149 

till  God  called  her  to  his  table  above."  Now 
God  has  indisputably  "  required  of  all  be- 
lievers "  what  this  believer  was  indisputably 
"unable  to  perform."  Nor  is  this  case  a  sol- 
itary one.  In  attacks  of  quinsy,  it  not  un- 
frequently  occurs  that  the  patient  is  unable  to 
swallow  anything,  solid  or  liquid.  What  then 
becomes  of  Dr.  P.'s  principle? 

The  truth  is,  when  the  law  of  Christ  re- 
quires a  definite  physical  act,  (as  it  does  in 
both  the  ordinances  of  the  church,)  and  there 
is  a  physical  impossibility  of  performing  it, 
the  law  is  virtually  obeyed,  and  it  is  so  accept- 
ed of  God,  when  the  desire  is  felt  and  ex- 
pressed of  performing  it.  God  requires  saints 
to  assemble  together  on  the  Sabbath  for  pub- 
lic worship.  And  yet  if  there  is  a  physical 
impossibility  of  any  saint's  doing  it,  while  his 
heart  is  there,  God  accepts  his  desire  as  an 
actual  performance.  God  accepted  David's 
purpose  to  build  the  temple,  and  accounted  it 
to  him  as  if  he  really  did  it;  and  so  he  does 
the  humblest  saint  in  obeying  the  least  of  his 
commandments,  when  the  external  act  is  im- 
possible. Such  arguments  as  this  of  Dr. 
Peters  may  have  weight  with  those  who  are 
so  superstitiously  wedded  to  outward  forms, 
13* 


150  EXAMINATION    OF 

that  they  would  send  for  a  minister  in  the  dead 
of  night  to  sprinkle  a  child,  for  fear  it  should 
die  without  baptism;  but  volumes  of  them 
would  have  little  influence  on  those  who  have 
consistent  views  of  the  true  relation  of  the  be- 
liever to  Christ's  ordinances.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  Dr.  Peters'  "  woman  "  was  a  person  of 
vastly  more  sense  and  piety  than  her  son,  who 
felt  so  confident  that  immersion  does  not 
belong  to  the  gospel.  She  certainly  exhibited 
more. 

REMARKS    ON    PART    II. 

Dr.  P.  gays,  (p.  131,)  "  Of  the  3,000,000 
who  profess  religion  in  the  United  States, 
more  than  three  quarters  consider  infant  bap- 
tism as  valid."  If  he  includes  Catholics  and 
Unitarians,  there  are  more  than  3,000,000, 
and  including  those,  probably  the  members  of 
Pedo-baptist  churches  may  be  set  down  as 
about  three-fourths  of  all  church  members. 
Omitting  those,  they  are  not  more  than  two- 
thirds.  And  the  one-third  is  rapidly  gaining 
on  the  two. 

But  stating  the  aggregate  of  church  mem- 
bers, is  far  from  presenting  the  real  facts  in 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  151 

the  case.  Multitudes  of  Pedo-baptist  mem- 
bers have  no  more  faith  in  infant  baptism  than 
Baptists  have.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  in 
Congregational  churches  generally  in  New 
England,  the  article  of  infant  baptism  is  a 
dead  letter.  I  have  been  credibly  informed 
that  in  some  churches  the  article  is  suppressed 
or  expunged;  and  it  is  well  known  that  in  all, 
members  do  as  they  choose  about  presenting 
their  children  for  baptism.  I  know  well  a 
member  of  a  church  with  which  Dr.  P.  has 
some  acquaintance,  who  united  with  it  with 
that  exception  to  the  articles  publicly  ex- 
pressed. I  know  another  who  lived  for  a  long 
time  without  professing  religion,  because  he 
had  no  faith  in  infant  baptism;  and  the  reason 
why  he  had  not,  was  his  witnessing  a  "  house- 
hold baptism  "  in  the  public  congregation, 
when  one  of  the  ''infants,"  a  youngster  of 
ten  or  twelve  years,  came  rushing  out  of  the 
church  "  swearing  mad."  Whether  he  thinks 
better  of  it  now,  I  know  not,  but  doubt, 
Methodist  churches  have  still  less  uniformity. 
I  have  known  their  members  to  declare  pos- 
itively they  believed  in  no  baptism  but  immer- 
sion, and  had  no  faith  whatever  in  infant  bap- 
tism.    It  is  a  fact  too  well  known  to  be  denied, 


152  EXAMINATION    OF 

that  the  enforcement  of  the  article  of  infant 
baptism  in  Pedo-baptist  churches  would  be 
the  signal  of  disbanding. 

The  burden  of  Sect.  2,  Part  II,  is,  that  in 
all  the  covenants  of  God  with  men,  children 
are  included  with  their  parents.  That  this 
was  so  in  the  covenants  with  Noah,  Abraham, 
&c.,  is  freely  admitted;  that  it  is  not  so  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,  I  need  only  refer  to  Heb. 
8:  10,  the  promise  of  which  is,  "  I  will  put 
my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in 
their  hearts."  All  who  are  interested  in  that 
covenant  will  certainly  be  saved;  and  if 
children  are  included  with  parents  in  that,  the 
children  of  believers  are  certain  of  salvation. 

The  precise  point  of  the  section,  however, 
is,  that  when  a  believer  makes  a  profession  of 
religion,  he  makes  formal  covenant  with  God, 
and  in  that  covenant  his  children  are  included. 
In  a  sense  that  is  undoubtedly  true;  and  in 
what  sense?  When  a  man  dedicates  himself 
to  God,  that  dedication  includes  a//  that  is  his; 
his  talents,  his  influence,  his  possessions,  and 
his  children  too.  And  that  dedication  implies 
an  obligation,  so  far  as  parental  influence  can 
go,  to  train  up  those  children  for  God.  Still 
those  children  are  creatures  of  God,  distinct 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  153 

from  their  parents,  and  have  an  accountability 
separate  from  their  parents.  They  have  in 
infancy  the  germs  of  an  understanding,  will, 
and  affections  of  their  own;  and  as  those  fac- 
ulties become  developed,  if  they  are  truly 
joined  to  the  Lord,  they  must  make  their  own 
dedication.  The  dedication,  therefore,  which 
a  parent  makes  of  a  child  to  God,  is  a  quali- 
fied one;  it  is  only  so  far  his  propriety  in  him, 
and  his  influence  is  concerned.  Now  is  that 
dedication  a  reason  for  the  baptism  of  the 
children?  If  it  is,  why  is  it  not  as  good  a  rea- 
son for  the  baptism  of  all  his  possessions.''  Of 
his  children,  the  dedication  is  necessarily 
qualified;  of  his  possessions,  it  is  absolute.  If, 
therefore,  the  qualified  dedication  of  children 
is  a  reason  for  their  baptism,  why  is  not  the 
unqualified  dedication  of  a  fine  horse,  a  reason 
for  his  baptism.^  or  of  a  dairy  of  any  number 
of  cows?  or  of  a  flock  of  sheep?  The  reader 
sees  that  this  is  absurd;  but  it  is  a  just  conclu- 
sion from  the  argument.  The  simple  truth  is, 
the  dedication  of  property  to  God  implies  cer- 
tain duties  with  reference  to  that  property; 
and  so  the  dedication  of  children  implies  cer- 
tain duties  in  reference  to  them.  But  it  is  no 
argument   for    their    baptism.      If  God   has 


154  EXAMINATION    OF 

COMMANDED  their  baptism,  do  it,  though  ten 
thousand  objections  were  brought  against  it; 
if  not,  you  have  no  more  right  to  baptize  them, 
than  you  have  to  baptize  your  horse  or  your 
sheep. 

But  it  is  said  (p.  160,)  it  is  unreasonable  to 
ask  an  express  command  for  baptizing  chil- 
dren. "Why,"  it  is  asked,  "do  those  who 
raise  this  objection  attend  public  worship  from 
Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  as  a  thing  of  religious 
obligation?"  Because,  first,  it  is  expressly 
commanded:  "Forsake  not  the  assembling  of 
yourselves  together."  Secondly,  we  have 
clear  apostolical  precedent.  When  either  of 
these  can  be  shown  for  infant  baptism,  we 
will  receive  it.  "  Why  do  they  observe  the 
first,  instead  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
as  the  Sabbath.^"  Because  we  have  apostoli- 
cal precedent;  just  what  we  want  for  infant 
baptism.  "  Why  do  they  administer  the 
Lord's  supper  to  females?"  Because  it  is 
given  to  the  church  as  such;  and  in  Christ 
Jesus,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female.  Show 
that  infant  baptism  is  given  to  the  church,  and 
we  accept  it.  "  Why  do  they  pray  with  their 
children  and  families,  or  teach  them  to  read?" 
By  express  command:   "  Bring  them  up  in  the 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  155 

nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord;"  just 
such  a  command  as  we  have  not  for  infant  bap- 
tism. Yes,  show  us  command  or  example,  and 
we  yield  at  once. 

In  Section  3,  it  is  attempted  to  be  proved 
that  the  visible  church  is  the  same,  under  both 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations.  Now 
here  is  a  most  remarkable  fallacy.  That  God 
has  had  a  spiritual  people  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  from  Adam  down,  is  unquestionably 
true;  and  the  conditions  of  being  one  of  God's 
spiritual  people  have  ever  been  the  same; 
viz.,  repentance,  faith,  obedience.  The  invisi- 
ble church,  then,  has  always  been  the  same. 
But  it  will  by  no  means  follow,  that  the  visible 
church  has  always  been  the  same.  It  was  one 
thing  under  the  patriarchal  dispensation, 
another  under  the  legal,  and  another  still  un- 
der the  Christian. 

What  is  it  that  constitutes  a  visible  church? 
Will  the  reader  think  of  this  question  a  mo- 
ment? Is  it  that  its  members  are  visible  men 
and  women?  But  have  we  not  reason  to  hope 
there  may  be  many  visible  men  and  women, 
who  are  children  of  God,  but  who  still  are 
not  members  of  the  visible  church?  The  visi- 
bility of  the  church,  then,  does  not  consist  in 


156  EXAMINATION    OF 

the  visible  corporeity  of  its  members.  Does 
it  then  consist  in  its  being  simply  an  organ- 
ized body  of  Christians?  But  Dr.  P.  would 
not  call  the  unbaptized  members  of  a  Metho- 
dist class,  members  of  the  visible  church. 
But  still  they  may  be  Christians,  and  are  cer- 
tainly an  organized  body.  Turn  this  question 
over  and  over,  and  you  can  find  nothing  in 
which  the  visibility  of  the  church  consists,  ex- 
cept that  it  has  visible  ordinances.  From 
this  obvious  truth  it  follows  indisputably,  that 
to  establish  an  identity  between  the  Jewish  and 
the  gospel  churches,  it  must  be  shown  that 
the  visible  ordinances  under  both  were  the 
same;  which  surely  no  one  will  pretend. 

The  Jewish  church  the  same  with  the  gospel 
church!  It  was  designed  expressly,  with  all  its 
ritual,  as  a  type  of  the  spiritual  church  to  be 
set  up  in  the  gospel  day,  with  its  spiritual 
facts  and  requirements.  The  type  identical 
with  the  antitype!  To  call  them  so  is  confu- 
sion worse  than  the  jargon  of  Babel.  Nay,  it 
was  this  very  confusion  which  turned  Christ's 
spiritual  church  into  Babylon  the  Great;  which 
converted  the  chaste  virgin  into  the  Mother  of 
Harlots.  The  Jewish  church  was  a  national 
church,  its  membership  hereditary.     Its  mem- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  157 

bers  were  born  into  it  after  the  flesh;  its  or- 
dinances were  expressly  called  by  the  apostles, 
"  carnal  ordinances,"  and  a  "burthen  which 
neither  they  nor  their  fathers  were  able  to 
bear."  The  gospel  church,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  spiritual;  holiness  of  heart  is  required  of 
its  members;  its  ordinances  are  few,  simple, 
highly  expressive,  serving  at  once  to  give  visi- 
bility to  the  body,  and  to  set  forth  the  great 
truths  which  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of 
Christianity — the  sufferings,  death  and  resur- 
rection of  her  great  Redeemer. 

Not  less  remarkable  is  the  confusion  which 
Dr.  P.  displays  in  applying  the  ancient  proph- 
ecies. Such  prophecies  as  "  Arise,  shine,  for 
thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is 
risen  upon  thee,"  he  says  were  addressed  by 
the  prophets  to  the  church  of  their  own  time! 
Did  Isaiah,  then,  tell  the  church  of  his  own 
time,  that  its  light  was  come,  and  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  had  risen  upon  it?  Most  clearly  this 
is  not  addressed  to  the  church  of  his  own  time, 
but  to  the  church  of  the  time  when  the  proph- 
ecy should  be  fulfilled. 

The  same  confusion  is  apparent  in  his  ap- 
plication of  New  Testament  scriptures.   '  'Many 
shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  shall 
14 


158  EXAMINATION    OF 

sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  This,  he  says,  was 
the  visible  church  from  which  the  Jews,  for 
their  unfaithfulness,  should  "  be  cast  out." 
I  answer,  no;  it  is  heaven  from  which  the 
Jews,  for  their  rejection  of  Christ,  should  be 
excluded;  "should  be  cast  out  into  outer 
darkness,"  i.  e.,  into  hell,  "  where  shall  be 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  The  Jews 
were  called  the  "children  of  the  kingdom," 
i.  e.,  of  heaven,  because  the  offer  of  salvation 
was  first  made  to  them.  "The  kingdom  of 
God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  Here 
it  means,  not  the  Jewish  church,  but  the  gos- 
pel church,  which  was  set  up  among  the  Jews. 
The  gospel  was  first  preached  to  them,  but 
the  apostles,  by  the  divine  direction,  told  them, 
"Seeing  ye  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of 
eternal  life,  lo  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles;"  and 
thus  was  fulfilled  this  solemn  declaration  of 
our  Lord. 

In  Section  6,  under  the  head  of  "  Testimony 
of  early  Christians  "  to  infant  baptism,  (on  p. 
169,)  occurs  this  remarkable  passage:  "Jus- 
tin Martyr,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  century 
after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  says  that 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  159 

*  Infants  are  washed  with  water,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  Spirit.'  "  Dr.  P. 
has  not  told  us  on  what  authority  he  makes 
this  extraordinary  statement;  and  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  that  neither  this  declaration, 
nor  any  thing  similar  to  it  can  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  Justin.  It  is  due  both  to  Dr. 
Peters  and  the  reader,  that  I  state  the  reasons 
for  this  explicit  contradiction  of  him,  on  a 
question  of  fact. 

And  first,  being  somewhat  familiar  with  this 
controversy  on  both  sides,  I  have  never  seen 
such  a  testimony  as  this  produced  from  Justin, 
by  any  Pedo-baptist  writer  before  Dr.  Peters. 
Dr.  Wall  and  Dr.  Woods,  who  have  both  en- 
deavored to  make  as  strong  a  historical  case 
as  possible  for  infant  baptism,  have  not  cited 
this  passage.  Is  it  possible  that  so  decisive  a 
testimony  as  this,  in  favor  of  infant  baptism, 
could  have  been  given  by  a  writer  so  near  the 
apostles,  and  the  world  not  have  known  it  long 
ago? 

Secondly,  the  very  critical  and  thorough 
ecclesiastical  historian,  Neander,  while  he 
claims  that  Ireneus,  in  the  very  obscure  pas- 
sage referred  to  by  Dr.  P.,  makes  an  allusion 
to  infant  baptism,  says  expressly,  "  there  is  no 


160  EXAMINATION    OF 

allusion  to  it  before  Ireneus."  But  Ireneus 
was  later  than  Justin.  Could  such  a  testimony 
as  this — so  conclusive  if  it  existed,  have  es- 
caped the  eagle  eye  of  Neander,  with  whom 
such  writers  as  Justin  Martyr  are  as  familiar 
as  his  own  mother  tongue? 

Thirdly.  In  the  year  1833,  Pres.  Sears,  of 
Newton  Theological  Institution,  published  in 
the  Christian  Review  (Vol.  3,)  a  ^very  able 
and  conclusive  article,  canvassing  the  histori- 
cal evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  He 
there  cites  from  Justin  a  decisive  testimony 
against  infant  baptism.  Prof.  Emerson,  of 
Andover,  perceiving  at  a  glance  the  important 
bearing  that  such  a  testimony  from  the  earliest 
Christian  father  would  have  on  this  contro- 
versy, furnished  for  the  same  periodical  a  reply 
to  Dr.  Sears,  (on  that  specific  point  only,)  in 
which  he  endeavored,  by  an  exegetical  and 
philological  argument,  to  invalidate  that  testi- 
mony of  Justin's.  This,  of  course,  brought 
out  Dr.  Sears  in  a  rejoinder,  in  which  he  de- 
monstrated that  the  integrity  of  Justin's  tes- 
timony against  infant  baptism  remained  un- 
affected by  Prof  Emerson's  philology;  and 
then,  by  way  of  a  clencher,  he  adduced 
another  from  Clement,  of  Alexandria,    (who 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  161 

lived  later  than  Ireneus,)  equally  decisive 
against  it.  Now  I  say,  if  Justin  had  given 
such  a  testimony  as  Dr.  Peters  has  cited  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism,  Prof.  Emerson,  with 
all  necessary  facilities  for  examining  Justin's 
writings  at  his  hand,  must  have  known  it; 
and  if  he  had  known  it,  he  could  not  have 
failed  to  have  quoted  it  against  Dr.  Sears. 
For  it  would  have  been  a  most  decisive  answer 
to  Dr.  Sears's  argument.  I  need  not  add  that 
I  have  too  much  confidence  in  Dr.  Sears's 
learning,  to  suppose  that  he  would  be  ignorant 
of  such  a  passage,  if  it  existed;  and  in  his 
candor  to  suppose  that  he  would  be  silent  in 
regard  to  it,  if  he  knew  of  it.  On  the  author- 
ity, then,  of  Prof.  Emerson,  of  Andover,  and 
Pres.  Sears,  of  Newton,  I  express  my  belief 
that  no  such  passage  as  Dr.  P.  has  quoted 
from  Justin  Martyr  can  be  found  in  his  wri- 
tings; and  I  say  that  in  such  a  state  of  facts, 
the  public,  in  the  absence  of  any  authority 
given  for  such  a  statement,  have  a  right  to 
refuse  their  credit  to  it,  till  the  authority  be 
given.  And  the  most  decisive  authority  will 
be  the  original  Greek,  of  Justin,  and  a  refer- 
ence to  the  place  where  it  can  be  found. 

I  will  close  these  remarks  upon  Dr.  P.'s  ar- 
14* 


162  EXAMINATION    OF 

guments  for  infant  baptism  with  a  single  ob- 
servation. The  great  discrepancy  of  views 
among  Pedo-baptist  writers,  on  the  nature  of 
the  rite  of  infant  baptism,  and  the  evidence 
by  which  it  should  be  sustained,  is  a  great 
reason  for  doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  prac- 
tising it,  and  the  validity  of  any  of  the  argu- 
ments by  which  it  is  sustained.  To  say  nothing 
of  Catholics  and  Episcopalians,  who  make  it 
regeneration,  and  who  wish  no  better  author- 
ity than  that  of  the  "Church"  for  it,  the 
discrepancies  among  American  Congregation- 
alists  and  Presbyterians  is  remarkable.  Within 
the  memory  of  some  now  living  and  active, 
Dr.  Worcester,  of  Salem,  published  a  book 
on  infant  baptism,  founding  his  argument  on 
the  Abrahamic  covenant;  Dr.  Emmons  follow- 
ed him,  with  the  declaration  that  such  a  mode 
of  reasoning  is  entirely  inconclusive — that 
New  Testament  ordinances  must  be  supported 
by  New  Testament  authority;  Dr.  Wilson,  of 
Cincinnati,  followed  him  with  the  declaration 
that  the  New  Testament  is  full  of  proof  for 
infant  baptism;  Dr.  Woods,  and  Prof  Stuart 
follow  after,  the  one  affirming  that  "there  is 
neither  precept  nor  precedent  for  it  in  all  our 
holy    writings,    and    the  proof  must  be  made 


PETERS    OjV    baptism.  163 

out  some  other  way," — and  the  other,  "  Com- 
mands, or  plain  and  certain  examples  in  the 
New  Testament,  relative  to  it,  I  do  not  find." 
Dr.  Bushnell,  of  Hartford,  has  set  all  Con- 
gregationaldom  in  a  ferment,  by  declaring 
that  infant  baptism,  as  held  by  them,  is  only 
*'  a  dead  tradition,  separated  from  any  rational 
meaning  or  use  " — that  Congregationalists 
"  are  all  Baptists  in  theory,  which  is  the 
same  as  to  say  they  ought  to  be  in  fact,"- — 
and  that  a  modified  baptismal  regeneration  is 
the  only  rational  or  firm  foundation  for  the 
rite;  and  lastly.  Dr.  Peters  tells  us  he  finds 
abundance  of  precept  and  abundance  of  ex- 
ample, both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
although  he  seems  after  all  to  have  some  mis- 
givings in  regard  to  the  clearness  of  the  proof 
they  afford,  for  he  says,  "  the  demand  for  a 
text  of  scripture  expressly  commanding  the 
baptism  of  children  is  unreasonable."  Dr. 
Bushnell  seems  to  feel  painfully  the  force  of 
these  discrepancies.  He  says  "that,  there  is 
something  like  a  covenant  in  this  matter,  we 
all  agree.  But  what  it  is,  and  what  force  it 
has,  we  have  never  agreed,  and  do  not  now. 
The  Baptists  have  pushed  us  for  an  answer; 
we  have  given   them  many  ansioers,  but  never 


164  EXAMINATION    OF 

any  single  answer  in  which  we  could  our- 
selves agree."  Is  it  strange  that  "  industri- 
ous ignorance  "  thinks  it  best  to  withhold  its 
assent  to  infant  baptism,  at  least  till  "learn- 
ing "  can  agree  with  itself? 

"  ORIGIN    OF    THE    BAPTISTS." 

Dr.  Peters,  in  his  last  section,  devotes  two 
or  three  pages  to  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination. After  affirming,  on  the  authority 
of  "our  best  historians,"  that  no  body  of 
Christians  were  ever  found  who  denied  infant 
baptism  before  the  13th  century,  he  asserts 
that  the  Baptist  denomination,  properly  speak- 
ing, commenced  in  Germany  in  1522,  with  the 
"fanatical  Anabaptists.''^  Now  I  could  say 
that  all  that  Dr.  P.  states  on  those  three  pages 
is  false,  in  as  few  words  as  he  has  that  it  is 
true.  But  as  nothing  would  be  gained  by  as- 
sertion and  counter-assertion,  I  must  beg  the 
reader's  attention  to  a  few  authentic  historical 
facts  on  this  subject.  I  will  state  them  as 
briefly  as  possible. 

Our  distinctive  sentiments  on  baptism  are 
these  two.  First,  that  immersion  is  the  only 
baptism  authorized  by  scripture;  and  secondly, 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  165 

that  it  is  to  be  administered  only  on  a  pro- 
fession of  faith.  As  to  the  first  of  these  points, 
I  have  already  shown,  from  Prof  Stuart,  that 
immersion  was  the  sole  practice  in  the  age  im- 
mediately succeeding  the  apostles — that  in 
Cyprian's  time,  sprinkling  was  introduced  for 
persons  in  sickness,  or  extreme  danger.  I 
will  now  quote  from  him  in  reference  to  the 
mode  of  baptism  in  succeeding  ages. 

"The  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  the 
Oriental  church  have  always  continued  to  pre- 
serve, even  down  to  the  present  time.  The 
members  of  this  church  are  accustomed  to 
call  the  members  of  the  western  churches 
sprinkled  Christians,  by  way  of  ridicule  and 
contempt. 

"  F.  Brenner,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer, 
has  recently  published  a  learned  work,  which 
contains  a  copious  history  of  usages  in  respect 
to  the  baptismal  rite.  The  result  of  them,  re- 
specting the  point  before  us,  I  present  as  fol- 
lows: 

"'Thirteen  hundred  years  was  baptism 
generally  and  ordinarily  performed  by  the 
immersion  of  a  man  under  water;  and  only  in 
extraordinary  cases,  was  sprinkling  or  affu- 
sion permitted.     These  latter  methods  of  bap- 


1€6  EXAMINATION    OF 

tism  were  called  in  question,  and  even  pro- 
hibited.' 

''These  results  will  serve  to  show  what  a 
Roman  Catholic  writer  feels  himself  forced 
by  historical  facts  to  allow,  in  direct  contra- 
diction to  the  present  practice  of  his  own 
church;  which  nowhere  practises  immersion, 
except  in  the  churches  of  Milan;  it  being 
every  where  else  even  forbidden. 

"In  the  work  of  John  Floyer  on  Cold 
Bathing,  it  is  mentioned  that  the  English 
church  practised  immersion  down  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  17th  century,  when  a  change 
to  sprinkling  gradually  took  place."  To  this 
I  will  add  that  the  English  historians  of  the 
time  of  Henry  YIII,  describe  minutely  all 
the  circumstances  connected  with  the  baptism 
of  his  two  children,  Edward  and  Elizabeth. 
(King  Edward  VI,  and  Queen  Elizabeth.) 
They  were  both  carried  to  ehurch,  and  bap- 
tized publicly  by  a  bnne  immersion.  Dr.  Wall, 
(one  of  "  our  best  historians,"  the  reader  will 
remember,)  ascribes  the  change  from  immer- 
sion to  sprinkling  in  England,  to  the  Presby- 
terians of  the  time  of  Oliver  Cromwell — 
chiefly  to  the  Westminster  assembly.  He 
says  somewhat   tartly,   "  They   who   are    in- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  167 

clined  to  Presbyterianism,  are  hardly  pre- 
vailed to  leave  off  that  scandalous  custom  of 
having  their  children,  though  never  so  well, 
baptized  out  of  a  basin  or  porringer,  in  a  bed 
chamber;  hardly  persuaded  to  bring  them  to 
church,  much  farther  from  having  them  dipped, 
though  never  so  able  to  bear  it."  Dr.  Wall, 
the  reader  will  see,  was  a  sturdy  defender  of 
the  rubric  of  his  own  church,  which  to  this 
day  requires  the  priest  "  to  dip  the  child  dis- 
creetly and  warily, ^^  except  its  nurse  testify 
that  it  is  weakly,  in  which  case  he  may  "pour 
water"  upon  it.  The  "children  of  the 
church  "  at  this  day,  are  all  "  weakly." 

The  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia  says  in  refer- 
ence to  Scotland:  "  In  this  country,  sprink- 
ling Vv'as  never  used  in  ordinary  cases  till  after 
the  Reformation.  During  the  persecution  of 
Mary,  many  persons,  most  of  whom  were 
Scotsmen,  fled  from  England  to  Geneva,  and 
there  greedily  imbibed  the  opinions  of  that 
qhurch.  In  1556,  a  book  was  published  at 
that  place,  containing  '  The  Forms  of  Prayer, 
and  Ministration  of  the  Sacraments,  approved 
by  the  Famous  and  Godly  learned  man,  John 
Calvin,'  in  which  the  administrator  is  enjoined 
to  '  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it  on  the 


168  EXAMINATION    OF 

child's  forehead.'  These  Scottish  exiles,  who 
had  renounced  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  im- 
plicitly acknowledged  the  authority  of  Calvin; 
and  returning  to  their  own  country,  with  Knox 
at  their  head,  established  sprinkling  in  Scot- 
land." 

I  have  now  given  historical  testimony  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  sprinkling,  in  the  ordinary 
administration  of  baptism,  is  altogether  of 
modern  date;  only  about  two  hundred  years 
old.  And  this,  I  trust,  will  be  sufficient  to 
justify  our  claim  to  antiquity,  as  regards  the 
first  part  of  our  distinguishing  sentiments. 

I  will  now  make  some  historical  citations  in 
respect  to  our  views  of  the  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. I  shall  show  that  there  has  been,  from 
the  earliest  ages  of  the  church,  through  all  the 
darkness  of  Popery  down  to  the  Reformation, 
a  succession  of  men,  called  by  different  names, 
who,  through  obloquy,  reproach  and  bloody 
persecution,  have  maintained  a  constant  testi- 
mony against  infant  baptism,  as  well  as  other 
corruptions  of  the  truth.  And  in  all  these 
citations,  the  reader  will  remember  that  the 
persons  described  held  to  immersion,  in  com- 
mon with  all  the  rest  of  Christendom. 

The  first  authentic  mention  of  infant  baptism 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  169 

in  the  church,  is  by  Cyprian,  in  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.  It  did  not,  however,  be- 
come universal  till  nearly  two  centuries  later. 
In  the  same  century,  (i.  e.,  the  third,)  before 
infant  baptism  was  received  at  Rome,  Nova- 
tian,  a  Presbyter  of  that  church,  seceded 
from  it  on  the  ground  of  its  departure  from 
apostolical  simplicity,  and  established  a  new 
sect,  which  was  called  Cathari  or  Puritans. 
There  is  the  clearest  evidence  that  these 
people  opposed  infant  baptism. 

We  find  these  Puritans  existing  through 
several  succeeding  centuries,  under  different 
names,  in  different  places;  as,  Donatisis, 
Luciferians,  and  Jierians.  Osiander  says  that 
modern  Anabaptists  are  the  same  with  the 
Donatists  of  old.  Fuller,  an  English  church 
historian,  says  that  the  English  Baptists  are 
the  Donatists  ^' new  dipped.'^  Augustine  ac- 
cuses the  Luciferians  of  refusing  to  baptize 
infants. 

In  the  seventh  century,  these  people  were 
called  in  Italy,  Paulicians.  In  the  eighth, 
they  were  called  Paterines.  They  were 
charged  by  the  Catholics,  says  Dr.  Allix, 
"with  abhorring  baptism."  Their  answer 
was,  "  A  strange  will,  a  strange  faith,  and  a 
15 


170  EXAMINATION    GT 

strange  confession,  do  not  seem  to  belong  to 
a  little  child,  who  neither  wills  nor  runs,  and 
from  whom  no  confession  of  faith  can  he  ex- 
pected.^^  They  flourished  in  Milan  for  two 
hundred  years,  where  they  were  protected  by 
the  rulers,  and  were  called  by  the  Catholics, 
Anabaptists. 

In  the  eleventh  century,  appear  two  famous 
reformers  in  France,  Bruno  and  Berengarius, 
whose  heresies  are  described  in  a  letter  stilt 
extant,  written  hy  the  Bishop  of  Leige  to 
Henry  I,  of  France.  Among  other  things 
charged,  he  says,  "As  far  as  in  them  lies, 
they  do  overthroiD  the  bajjtism  of  infants.^^ 

In  the  twelfth  century,  we  find  a  Catholic 
writer,  by  the  name  of  Egbert,  describing  a 
numerous  body  of  heretics,  caHed  Cathari,  or 
Puritans,  descendants,  according  to  Mosheim, 
of  the  ancient  Puritans  (i.  e.,  Novalians,)  of 
Italy,  This  fact  the  reader  will  particularly 
notice.  "They  are,"  says  Egbert,  "a  sort 
of  people  very  pernicious  to  the  Catholic 
faith,  because  they  maintain  their  opinions  by 
authority  of  scripture  ''^ !  Among  other  here- 
sies, he  says,  "  they  deny  the  idility  of  baptism 
to  infants,  maintaining  that  baptism  ought  to 
be  delayed  till  they  come  to  years  of  discretion. 


I 


PETERS    ON    BAP^TISM.  171 

and  even  then,  those  only  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized who  make  a  profession  of  faith  and  de- 
sire it."  Egbert  adds,  "  They  are  increased 
to  great  multitudes  throti<^hout  all  countries. '' 
Evervinus,  another  Catholic  priest  of  that 
time,  describes  these  same  people  in  a  letter 
to  St.  Bernard,  and  represents  them  as  very 
numerous.  He  says  of  them,  *' They  do  not 
hold  to  thebaptism  vf  infants,  alleging,  in  proof 
of  their  doctrine,  '  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,'  &c," 

In  the  same  century,  Peter  de  Bruys  and 
his  followers,  Henry  and  Arnold,  appeared  in 
France  and  Italy  as  zealous  reformers.  Mo- 
sheim  says  expressly  of  both  Peter  and  Henry, 
that  they  denied  infant  baptism.  St.  Bernard 
writes  of  Henry  to  the  Count  of  St.  Giles  as 
follows:  "  How  great  are  the  evils  which  we 
have  heard  and  known  to  be  done  by  Henry 
the  heretic!  He  wanders  up  and  down  in 
your  country,  in  sheep's  clothing,  being  a 
ravenous  wolf!  The  life  of  Christ  is  denied 
to  infants,  by  refusing  them  the  grace  of  bap- 
tism, nor  are  they  suffered  to  draw  near  to 
salvation,  though  our  Saviour  tenderly  cried 
out  in   their  behalf,  Suffer  little  children   to 


172  EXa.MINATION    OF 

come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not!  O  most 
unhappy  people!" 

This  is  the  "  small  sect  "  that  Dr.  P.  speaks 
of  as  denying  infant  baptism  because  they 
held  that  infants  were  incapable  of  salvation. 
The  reader  can  see  what  foundation  there  is 
for  this  calumny,  which  Dr.  Peters,  after  his 
"best  historians,"  is  laboring  to  fix  upon  those 
whom  Mosheim  expressly  ca\\s  "the  witnesses 
of  the  truth  in  the  times  of  universal  darkness 
and  superstition."  Baptism  with  the  Catho- 
lics was  salvation.  To  deny  baptism  to  infants, 
was,  therefore,  in  their  estimation,  to  deny 
salvation  to  them.  To  say  that  faith  was  a 
prerequisite  to  baptism,  and  that  infants  were 
incapable  of  faith,  was  to  say  that  they  were 
incapable  of  baptism;  which  in  the  mind  of  a 
Catholic,  was  to  say  they  are  incapable  of 
salvation.  The  Catholics,  therefore,  fastened 
this  calumny  upon  them.  Dr.  Wall,  who 
writes  his  history  for  the  purpose  of  defending 
infant  baptism,  eagerly  catches  up  the  calumny, 
to  fasten  odium  upon  those  who  deny  infant 
baptism,  and  Dr.  Peters  as  eagerly  repeats  it! 

The  Waldenses  began  to  attract  public  at- 
tention in  the  twelfth  century.  Reinerius,  a 
Popish   inquisitor,  and    an  apostate    from  the 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  173 

Waldenses,  wrote  a  work  on  these  people. 
Among  other  reasons  for  their  extermination 
as  highly  injurious  to  the  Catholic  faith,  he 
gives  these  two — their  antiquity,  and  their 
universal  diffusion.  From  what  he  says  of 
them,  it  is  clear  that  they  are  the  same  with 
the  Puritans,  Donatists,  Paulicians,  Petro- 
brussians,  and  Henricans,  who  have  already 
been  shown  to  have  opposed  infant  baptism. 
Mosheim  says  expressly  of  the  Paulicians  in 
France,  in  the  eleventh  century,  that  they  re- 
jected the  baptism  of  infants.  That  all  the 
Waldenses  opposed  infant  baptism  cannot  be 
proved;  that  many  of  them  did,  is  indisputably 
true.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  we  find  the 
Bishop  of  Aries  writing  to  Pope  Innocent  III, 
complaining  that  his  diocese  was  troubled  with 
a  great  many  Waldensian  heretics,  who  said 
it  loas  to  no  -purpose  to  baptize  children.  Cassa- 
nion,  in  his  history  of  the  Waldenses,  says, 
"  Some  writers  have  affirmed  that  they  ap- 
proved not  of  the  baptism  of  infants;  and  I 
cannot  deny  that  the  greater  pari  were  of  that 
opinion."  Merringus  affirms,  on  the  authority 
of  a  confession  of  faith  in  his  possession,  that 
they  were  opposed  to  infant  baptism. 

Dr.    Mosheim  says  that    the    origin  of  the 
15* 


174  EXAMINATION    OF 

Dutch  Baptists,  (called  in  his  day  Anabap- 
tists,) *'  is  hid  in  the  r^emote  depths  of  antiquity.'' 
"  They  are  not,"  says  he,  "  entirely  mistaken, 
when  they  boast  of  their  descent  from  the 
Waldenses,  Petrubrussians,  and  other  ancient 
sects,  tvho  are  usually  considered  as  witnesses 
OF  THE  TRUTH,  in  the  times  of  universal 
darkness  and  superstition.  Before  the  rise  of 
Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed,  in 
almost  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  many 
persons  who  adhered  tenaciously  to  the 
following  doctrine,  which  the  Waldenses, 
and  the  followers  of  John  WicklifTe,  and 
John  Huss,  had  maintained,  viz.  'That  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  or  the  visible  church  he 
had  established  on  earth,  was  an  assembly  of 
true  and  real  saints,  and  ought,  therefore,  to 
be  inaccessible  to  the  wicked  and  unrighteous, 
and  also  exempt  from  all  those  institutions 
which  human  prudence  suggests,  to  oppose 
the  progress  of  iniquity,  or  to  correct  and  re- 
form transgressors.'  "  This  proposition,  I 
cannot  help  remarking,  deserves  to  be  printed 
in  letters  of  gold.  It  was  for  maintaining  this 
principle,  that  Roger  Williams  was  banished 
from  Massachusetts.  It  is  a  most  admirable 
summary  of  the   principles   of  church  organi- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  175 

zation  which  the  Baptists  have  ever  maintained, 
and  for  maintaining  which,  they  have  met  ob- 
loquy, reproach,  stripes,  imprisonment,  ban- 
ishment. It  meets  and  cuts  off  every  error 
in  relation  to  church  organization  which  all 
Pedo-baptist  churches  have  at  one  time  or 
other  maintained — as  the  universal  one  of 
infant  baptism — the  partial  ones  of  prelacy, 
hierarchies,  union  of  church  and  state.  It 
has  achieved  wonders,  and  it  has  yet  greater 
wonders  to  achieve.  And  who  held  it.''  Let 
the  reader  mark  it;  gCJ^  The  Waldenses, 
and  the  followers  of  John  Wickliffe,  and  John 
Huss. 

Dr.  Mosheim  further  says  that  this  maxim 
(which  he  calls  a  "fanatical  principle,")  is 
the  true  source  of  all  the  peculiarities  in  the 
religious  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  people 
whom  he  is  describing.  "  It  is  in  consequence 
of  this,"  says  he,  "  that  they  admit  none  to  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  but  persons  that  are  come 
to  the  full  use  of  their  reason.^  ^ 

This  statement  of  Dr.  Mosheim's  needs  no 
comment.  The  reader  can  see  that  he  identi- 
fies the  Dutch  Baptists  of  his  day  with  the 
Waldenses  and  the  other  ancient  sects  that 
opposed  Popery — that   he  expressly  identifies 


176  EXAMINATION    OF 

the  Waldenses  with  the  Petrobrussians-,  who 
Dr.  Peters  admits  opposed  infant  baptism — 
and  that  he  identifies  all  the  others  mentioned 
with  the  followers  of  John  Wickliffe  and  John 
Huss;  and  finally  he  ascribes  to  them  all,  the 
fanatical  Roger  Williams  principle — THE 
GREAT  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLE. 

The  Waldenses  spread  themselves  all  over 
Europe.  They  abounded  in  England  before 
the  Reformation,  and  laid  the  foundation  of 
many  of  the  English  Baptist  churches.  Eng- 
land, in  the  time  of  Cromwell,  was  full  of 
Baptists.  Their  number  and  progress  aston- 
ished all  beholders.  Many  of  them  emigrated 
to  this  country,  and  laid  the  foundation  of 
Baptist  churches  here. 

Besides  the  evidence  which  I  have  given  of 
a  succession  of  men  from  the  early  corruptions 
of  Christianity  down  to  the  present  time,  hold- 
ing the  essential  points  maintained  by  Bap- 
tist churches,  a  similar  succession  can  be 
shown  on  the  island  of  Great  Britain.  Chris- 
tianity was  introduced  into  Britain  in  the  first 
century.  In  the  fifth  century,  the  Saxons, 
who.  were  Pagans,  conquered  the  island,  and 
drove  the  original  inhabitants  into  the  moun- 
tains  of  Wales.     At    the    close    of  the  sixth 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  177 

century,  St.  Austin  was  sent  into  England 
with  forty  monks,  to  convert  the  Saxons  from 
Paganism  to  the  religion  of  Rome.  Such  was 
their  success,  that  they  are  said  to  have  bap- 
tized 10,000  Saxons  in  one  day,  in  the  river 
Swale;  another  example  of  what  can  be 
done  in  the  way  of  immersing.  After  he  had 
converted  the  Saxons,  his  next  attempt  was  to 
subject  to  his  master,  the  Pope,  the  Welch 
Christians,  who  had  never  acknowledged 
Rome,  or  received  any  of  her  corruptions. 
He  demanded  of  them  three  things;  one  of 
which  was  that  they  should  "  give  Christendome 
to  their  children.^'  From  this,  it  is  clear  that 
the  ancient  British,  or  Welch  Christians,  had 
never  practised  infant  baptism;  and  the  ad- 
vent of  St.  Austin  was  the  introduction  of  that 
and  Popery,  at  once,  into  that  island.  These 
Christians  had  the  temerity  to  refuse  both 
"Christendome  for  their  children,"  and  Popery 
from  St.  Austin;  for  which  crime  his  saint- 
ship  set  upon  them  the  murderous  arms  of  the 
Saxons,  who  slaughtered  without  mercy  great 
numbers  of  them.  Since  that  time,  Wales 
has  never  been  without  witnesses  for  the  truth. 
Baptist  churches  have  always  flourished  there, 
very  similar  in  doctrine  and  discipline  to  those 


ITS  EXAMIi\ATION    OF 

at  present  existing.  In  1663,  an  entire  church, 
with  their  pastor,  emigrated  from  Swansea,  in 
Wales,  and  settled  the  town  of  the  same 
name  in  Massachusetts. 

I  have  not  presented  this  historical  sketch 
because  it  is  of  the  least  importance  as  to  the 
real  issue  between  us  and  our  Pedo-baptist 
brethren.  If  it  were  true  that  not  a  Baptist 
ever  existed,  from  the  time  of  the  death  of  the 
apostle  John  up  to  this  present  year,  1848,  yet 
if  Baptist  principles  are  scriptural,  all  Chris- 
tians ought  to  receive  them.  Still  the  fact 
that  almost  every  Pedo-baptist  book,  or  ser- 
mon on  baptism,  makes  the  grand  climacteric 
of  the  argument,  the  assertion  that  Baptists 
never  had  any  existence  before  the  mad  men 
of  Munster  appeared,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
seems  to  require  some  notice;  and  I  do  not 
see  how  less  can  be  done  than  to  make  a 
statement  of  the  real  facts  in  the  case.  If  "  I 
am  become  a  fool  in  glorying,"  I  can  say  ta 
our  brethren,  "  Ye  have  compelled  me.'* 

COXCLUSION. 

In  taking  my^  leave  of  Dr.  Peters*^  book,  I 
wish  to  address  a  word  to  any  of  my  Pedo- 


PETERS    ON    BAPTISM.  1'3'9 

baptist  friends  who  may  have  thought  it  worth 
their  while  to  follow  me  through  these  pages. 
Baptism  is  declared  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be 
*'  the  answer  of  a  ^ood  conscience  toivard  God."" 
Now  a  good  consGience,  in  relation  to  any  re- 
ligious duty,  implies  a  correct  understanding 
of  that  duty.  And  a  correct  understanding 
implies  a  fair  examination.  Has  the  subject 
t)f  baptism  ever  received  a  candid  examination 
at  your  hands?  Hearing  your  pastor  preach 
upon  it,  is  not  an  examination  of  it;  reading 
Dr.  Peters's  book,  or  mine,  or  both,  is  not  an 
examination  of  it.  All  this  is  well,  but  action 
on  this  alone  will  not  be  entitled  to  be^  called 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God. 
Reading  the  word  of  God  even,  is  not  an  ex- 
amination of  it,  if  yoti  read  with  a  determina- 
tion not  to  sacrifice  your  preconceived  opin- 
ions and  prejudices.  Hear  our  Saviour:  '^  If 
any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of 
the  doctrine."  It  is  only  by  coming  to  the 
word  of  God  with  a  prayerful  spirit,  and  with 
a  firm  purpose  to  do  the  duty  you  may  find 
taught  there,  that  you  can  hope  to  learn  what 
duty  is.  Have  you  ever  done  this?  If  not, 
can  your  baptism  be,  in  any  sense  whatever, 
the  answer  of  a  <?ood  conscience  toward  God? 


180  EXAMINATION    OF 

Can  you  be  said  to  have  any  conscience  at  all 
in  relation  to  it? 

I  make  these  suggestions  in  a  spirit  of  bro- 
therly kindness.  And  I  trust  I  shall  be  par- 
doned for  saying,  they  are  worthy  of  your 
serious  attention.  Baptism  is  a  command  of 
our  blessed  Saviour — of  Him  who  has  said, 
"  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments." 
"Hethslt  hath  my  commandments  and  keep- 
ETH  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me.  He  that 
loveth  me  not,  keepeth  not  my  sayings.'* 
•'Whosoever  shall  break  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he 
shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.'* 


Note. — In  the  preceding  pages  the  author  has  given  but  a  brief 
space  to  Dr.  Peters'  Part  II.  When  he  undertook  this  review  he 
had  already  prepared  for  the  press  a  treatise  containing  a  concise, 
but  complete  examination  of  the  whole  subject  of  infant  baptism, 
including  a  full  exposition  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  an 
examination  of  all  the  historical  arguments  usually  advanced  in 
support  of  infant  baptism.  He  flatters  himself,  that  in  these  two 
particulars,  his  forthcoming  tract  will  be  found  more  full  and  satis- 
factory, than  any  work  now  in  general  circulation,  on  the  Baptist 
side  of  this  question. 


